221
*-
flie faith of
kansas city |||| public library
Kansas city, misst
Books will be issued only
on presentation of library card.
Please report lost cards and
change of residence promptly.
Card holders are responsible for
all books, records, films, pictures
or other library materials
checked out on their cards.
iAR 81973
NOV J 1837
Books by H. H. Rowley
Published by The Westminster Press
THE FAITH OF ISRAEL
THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE
THE RE-DISCOVERY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
THE
FAITH
OF
ISRAEL
Aspects of Old Testament Thought
by
H. H. ROWLEY
Philadelphia
THE WESTMINSTER PRESS
First published in Great Britain in 1956
by the S. C. M. Press, London
Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 57-5060
TYPESET IN GREAT BRITAIN
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEDICATED TO
THE THEOLOGICAL FACULTIES OF THE
UNIVERSITIES OF ZURICH AND MARBURG
IN GRATEFUL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
OF THEIR HONORARY DEGREES
CONTENTS
Foreword j
Preface g
Abbreviations 1 1
Introduction 1 3
I REVELATION AND ITS MEDIA 23
II THE NATURE OF GOD 48
III THE NATURE AND NEED OF MAN 74
IV INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNITY 99
V THE GOOD LIFE 124
VI DEATH AND BEYOND 150
VII THE DAY OF THE LORD IJJ
Indexes (a) Subjects 203
(b) Authors 208
(c) Texts 213
FOREWORD
MR James Sprant of Wilmington, North Carolina, in 1911
established a perpetual lectureship at Union Theological
Seminary in Virginia, which would enable this institution to
secure from time to time the services of distinguished ministers
and authoritative scholars as special lecturers on subjects con-
nected with various departments of Christian thought and
Christian work. The lecturers are chosen by the Faculty of the
Seminary and a Committee of the Board of Trustees, and the
lectures are published after their delivery in accordance with a
contract between the lecturer and these representatives of the
institution.
The series of lectures on this Foundation for the year 1955 is
presented in this volume.
B. R. LACY, JR, President
Union Theological Seminary in Virginia
Richmond, Virginia
PREFACE
WHEN I was invited at relatively short notice owing to the
withdrawal of the expected lecturer to deliver the James
Sprunt Lectures at Union Theological Seminary, Richmond,
Virginia, I hesitated to accept, since I had so heavy a burden
of other commitments. My warm friendship for Professor John
Bright decided me to accept, and I then rationalized my accep-
tance by reflecting that the honour of such an invitation would
be unlikely to come my way again, since disappointments
through the withdrawal of acceptances are too rare to be
counted on. The shortness of the time at my disposal between
my acceptance and the date of the delivery of the lectures
during this interval I had already undertaken to deliver the
Louis H. Jordan Bequest Lectures in Comparative Religion in
the School of Oriental and African Studies in London com-
pelled me to deal with a broad subject, and I chose the general
title of The Faith of Israel, though I realized that I could not
cover the whole of this in seven lectures, even in general out-
line. In a number of scattered publications I have dealt with
particular questions within this general field, and here I have
passed over these lightly, with references to the places where I
have dealt with them more fully. Other questions I have
treated here more fully than I have elsewhere done, though still
far less adequately than I could wish. Before I received the
invitation from Richmond I had been invited by the late
Principal of New College, London, to deliver the Drew Lecture
on Immortality, and had announced my subject for a lecture
a few months before the date of the James Sprunt Lectures.
Since the subject I had chosen fell within the scope of the sub-
ject for these lectures I have embodied its material in the sixth
lecture, and by permission of the Trustees of the Drew Lectures
I have sometimes drawn verbally on my Drew Lecture.
In the footnotes I have tried to indicate to the interested
reader who wishes to pursue various aspects of the subject where
he will find relevant help. Yet I have tried to avoid excessive
footnoting, and where possible I have referred the reader to the
io Preface
fuller bibliographical information I have given elsewhere. It
would have been easy to add a great many more references,
thus making this book of greater service to the reader who
wishes to go further, but only at the expense of making it too
forbidding to the more general reader. As the latter is not
likely to read the footnotes anyhow, and the former will find
them more useful if quotations are left in their original lan-
guages, I have so left them.
It remains to acknowledge the great kindness I was shown at
Richmond, not alone by Professor and Mrs Bright, whose
guest I was, and by the President and the members of the
Faculty, but by my audience of students and former students,
whose reception of the lectures compensated me for my rash-
ness in promising to deliver them and the pressure under which
they had been prepared.
H. H. ROWLEY
Manchester University
August 1955
ABBREVIATIONS
A.A. = Alttestaznentliche Abhandlungen
A.f.O. Archwfur Orimtforsckung
A~J.S.L. American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures
A.J. Th. American Journal of Theology
A.N.E.T. = Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ed. by J. B. Pritchard
A.O. = Der Alte Orient
A.R. W Archwfur Religionszwssenschaft
A.T.A.N.T, == Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen
Testaments
A.TJX = Das Alte Testament Deutsch
B.A. The Biblical Archaeologist
B.A.S.O.R.^ Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
B.D.B. A Hebrew and English Lexicon to the Old Testament, ed. by
F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and G. A. Briggs
B.F.G.Th.==Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie
B.J.R.L. = Bulletin of the John Rylands Library
B.O.T. = De Boeken van net Oude Testament
B.W.A.N.T. = Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen
Testament
B.Z.A.W. = Beihefte zur eitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissen-
schaft
Camb. B. == Cambridge Bible
C.B. Q,. = Catholic Biblical Quarterly
Gent. B. Century Bible
G.N.T. = Gommentaire du Nouveau Testament
C.Q^.= The Congregational Quarterly
C.R.A.L == Comptes rendus de FAcadtmie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres
G.Th. = Gahiers Th^ologiques
D.B. = Dictionary of the Bible, ed. by James Hastings
D.Bib. = Dictimnaire de la Bible, ed. by F. Vigouroux
D .!,.. = Deutsche Liter aturzeitung
E3. = Encyclopaedia Biblica, ed. by T. K. Gheyne and J. S. Black
E.Bib. = fitudes Bibliques
E.R.E=* Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. by James Hastings
E. T. = Expository Times
E. Tk.L. = Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses
E. Th.R. = fetudes Thlologiques et Religieuses
H.A.T. = Handbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. by O. Eissfeldt
H.J.= The Hibbert Journal
H.K. = Handkommentar zum Alten Testament, ed. by W. Nowack
H.S. A.T. = Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testamentes (Bonner
Bibel)
H.S.A.T.*=E. Kautzsch (ed. by), Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testa-
ments (^th ed. edited by A. Bertholet)
is Abbreviations
H. T.R. = Harvard Theological Review
H.U.G.A. = Hebrew Union College Annual
I.C.C. ~ The International Critical Commentary
J.A.O.S.** Journal of the American Oriental Society
JJ3.L.= Journal of Biblical Literature
jU?.jR.= Journal of Bible and Religion
JM?.** Jewish Encyclopedia
J.N.E.S* = Journal of Near Eastern Studies
* Jewish Quarterly Review
* Journal of Religion
.jR.= Journal of the Society for Oriental Research
J. T.S. Journal of Theological Studies
K.A.T. = Kommentar zum Alten Testament, ed. by E. Sellin
KJH.C, = Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament, ed. by
K. Marti
Ned. T.T.=*Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschnft
N.R.Th.~ Nouvelle Revue Theologique
N.T.D. Das Neue Testament Deutsch
N.T.T.- Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift
0. T.S. = Oudtestamentische Studien
P.A.A.J.R. ~ Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research
P.R.E. = Herzog-Hauck, Realencyclopddie fur protestantische Theologie
und Kirche, 3rd ed.
R.B.=* Revue Biblique
R.E.S.-B* = Revue des Etudes Semtiques et Babyloniaca
R.G.G. = Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart
R.H.P.R. == Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie religieuses
R.H.R. == Revue de VHistoire des Religions
S.A. T. Die Schriften des Alten Testaments in Auswahl
S.B.T.= Studies in Biblical Theology
S.B. U. ** Svenskt Bibliskt Uppslagsverk
S.D.B.*= Supplement au Dictionnaire de la Bible, ed. by L. Pirot
5. J. T. Scottish Journal of Theology
Symb-B.U. Symbolae Biblicae Upsalienses
TA.L.^.== Theologische Liter aturzeitung
Th.R, = Theologische Rundschau
Th. W.B. Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. by
G. Kittel and G. Friedrich
Th.%.= Theologische %eitschrift
T.SJK. Theologische Studien und Kritiken
T.U. = TekstenUitleg
U.J.E. = Universal Jewish Encyclopedia
U.U. A. = Uppsala Universitets Arsskrift
V. T. as Vetus Testamentum
West. C. = Westminster Commentaries
^eitschriftfur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
. as Zjdtschrift der deutschen morgenlfindischen Gesellschaft
, Th.K. = Zeitschriftfur Theologfe und Kirche
INTRODUCTION
IN recent years there has been a revived interest In the Theo-
logy of the Old Testament, and In many countries works de-
voted to this subject have appeared in rapid succession. 1 Yet
the task of writing such a work is harder today than it once
was. 2 The critical work of the past century and a half has
emphasized the diversity within the Old Testament, and has
led to the study of the history of the religion of Israel. It has
been recognized that the early beliefs and practices of Israel
were not the same as those of the Judaism that prevailed on the
eve of the Christian era. Hence it has sometimes been suggested
that the Old Testament is no longer of importance to men. 3 To
the historian of religion it may have a high value; but It is
treated as no more vital to present-day religion than the study
of the history of science to the man who wishes to make practical
1 In The Unity oftfie Bible, 1953, pp. 4 flf., I have noted some of the many books and
articles devoted to this theme. Since the publication of that work Vriezen's
Hoofdlijnen der Tlieologie van net Oude Testament has appeared in a new and sub-
stantially enlarged edition (1955), an< ^ a German translation has been announced,
while an English edition is in preparation. The first volume of a French work by
P. van Imschoot, TMologie de VAncien Testament, I. Dieu, 1954, has appeared, and
G. Pidoux has published a short study of UHomme dans VAncien Testament
(C.Th.), 1954. Moreover, G. Ryder Smith has published a study of The Bible
Doctrine of Sin, 1953, Vriezen a study on the election of Israel, Die Erwdhlung
Israels nach dem Alten Testament (A.T.A.N.T.), 1953, and G. Bernini has offered a
contribution to the Theology of the Old Testament in a volume on penitential
prayer, Le Preghure penitenziali del Salterio (Analecta Gregoriana, Ixii, Ser. Fac.
TheoL, A 9), 1953, and F. Asensio a contribution in a volume on the Biblical
doctrine of election, Tahvehy su Pueblo (in the same series, A 8), 1953. While
the present work has been in the press, E. Jacob's Theohgie de VAncienTestament,
1956 (1955 on back of title page), has appeared.
* Gf. N. W. Porteous, S.J.T., i, 1948, pp. 136 ff., and G. R. North, ibid, ii, 1949,
pp. 1 13 ff., where some of the problems attaching to this task are discussed.
* G. E. Phillips (The Old Testament in the World Church, 1942, pp. 6 ff.) gives some
examples of such an attitude, particularly on the Mission field. He cites, amongst
much other evidence, the remark of a Chinese pastor: 'Intending missionaries or
evangelists waste their time if they spend a lot of it studying the Old Testament
. . . Reading the Old Testament is like eating a large crab; it turns out to be
mostly shell, with very little meat on it* (p. 23). Similarly J. Woods (The Old
Testament in the Church, 1949, p. i) cites the observation that the Old Testament
is *a millstone about the neck of Christianity*. I have heard similar opinions
expressed by missionaries^ and a similar attitude to the Old Testament is not
unknown in the West. It is curious to observe that in 1870, in the Introductory
Lecture to his Theology of the Old Testament, G. F. Oehler lamented that a similar
attitude was then common, but rejoiced that a revived interest in Old Testament
Theology was beginning (Zondervan Press reprint edition, pp. i f.).
13
1 4 The Faith of Israel
use of the scientific knowledge of today. To the scholar it may
have an antiquarian interest, but for ordinary people it is
treated as of no moment.
It is idle to try to rehabilitate the Old Testament by turning
the back on all the scientific study that has been devoted to it,
and by imposing upon it a dogmatic unity that is brought to it.
The New Testament cannot be read back into the Old by the
skilful selection of convenient texts and the ignoring of the
rest, or by the resort to typology or the allegorizing of all that
is inconvenient* 1 While it is true, as I have more than once
argued, 2 that the Old Testament looks forward to something
beyond itself, and the New Testament looks back to the Old
Testament, so that in a real sense they belong to one another
and form a single whole, the Old Testament is not to be read
as a Christian book. It is an essential part of the Christian
Bible, but it is not a part in which the meaning of the whole is
to be found. A doctor may take a sample of our blood and test it,
and form sound conclusions about the blood that is left in our
veins; but the Bible is not to be treated in that way. Its unity is
of a wholly different order. There is a unity in the life of an
individual; yet it is impossible from the most careful study of
the child to know the foture course of his life. The unity of the
Bible is of this latter kind. It is the unity of growth, and not a
static unity, and each stage of the growth must be considered
in relation to the whole, as well as in its uniqueness. Moreover,
within the Old Testament we have the record of a long growth,
so that no static unity can be found even in this part of the
Bible. Ideas and practices which were outgrown within the
period covered by the Old Testament figure in some parts of
it. It is precisely this that makes the writing of an Old Testament
theology so difficult. For how can the diversity of the ideas of
the long process be reduced to the systematized unity of a
theology? Is not that unity by its very nature a static unity,
and therefore other than the dynamic unity of the process ?
1 On allegorical and typological interpretations of the Old Testament, cf. The
Unity of the Bible, pp. 17 ff., and the literature there noted. To this may be added
W. Zimmerli, Evangelische Theologte 9 xii, 1952, pp. 34 ff., F. BaumgSrtel, Ver~
heissung, 1952, and 77tX.., Ixxbc, 1954, cols. 199 ff.
2 Cf. especially The Unity of the Bible, pp. 95 ff. Cf. further H. W. Hertzberg,
Wendende Kirche im Neuen Testament, 1950, and Baumgzirtel, op. cit.; also J.
Coppens, Les Harmonies des deux Testaments, revised ed., 1949, and Vom christlichen
Verstandnis des Alien Testaments, 1952.
Introduction 15
That this dilemma must somehow be resolved is widely felt,
and the number of books issued in recent years offering a study
of Old Testament theology is eloquent testimony to the
strength of the feeling. The essence of the problem is the
necessity to retain a historical sense, and to have a firm grasp
of the process that provides the material for our theology, 1
while yet not turning our theology back into a history. The
Old Testament theologian must remember all the work done
by the historian, and the study of the history of Old Testament
religion must continue side by side with the study of the
theology of the Old Testament.
Our problems have been increased by the fact that during
the very years in which the demand for a study of the theology
of the Old Testament has made itself heard, our materials for
the study of the history of the religion have become more
abundant. We have ever larger knowledge of the background
of Semitic, and particularly Canaanite, religion which lay
behind and around the religion of Israel, 2 and we see that much,
even in Judaism, can no longer be regarded as special super-
natural revelation given directly and specifically to Israel, but
had its antecedents in Canaanite religion. To some who have
approached the subject with simple evolutionary presupposi-
tions this has seemed to yield the conclusion that Israel's
religion developed naturally out of Canaanite religion. 8 Yet
Canaanite religion could not of itself have yielded aH that we
find in the Old Testament, any more than the Old Testament
of itself could have yielded all that we find in the New. A
merely evolutionary view can dispense with the Incarnation,
for which it can have no use, but it is bound to read back into
the origins all that has come to light in the development, as it
understands the development, or else to ignore in the develop-
ment all that it does not find in the origins. My study of the
Old Testament leads me to find both evolutionary and non-
evolutionary factors in the story. Just because there is con-
tinuity, there is something carried forward from one moment
1 Cf. W. A. Irwin, J.B.R., xxi, 1953, pp. 9 ff.
8 Cf, W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, 3rd ed., 1954, and M.
Burrows, What Mean these Stones? 1941.
* Gf. G. . Wright, The Old Testament against its Environment, 1950, p. 12: 'Has the
God of Israel evolved from the gods of the nations, or Israelite monotheism from
pagan polytheism? During the past century our preoccupation with the idea of
development has led us to answer this question in the affirmative.'
1 6 The Faith of Israel
to the next; yet new factors come in, and the mere passage of
time could not produce from one moment all that we find in
the next. 1 To these we shall return.
No more to be preferred is the view that Israel brought her
reEgion with her from Sinai, and that in Canaan there was a
long fight between this religion and Ganaanite religion, until
finally the faith of Sinai prevailed in Judaism, This is unduly
to simplify the story. It would seem truer to say that at least
three strands entered into the religious life of Israel. Israel's
religion before Moses, while it derived from the general
Semitic background, was different from Canaanite religion in
character, 2 while after the settlement in Palestine Canaanite
cultural and religious influence was continually felt. The third
strand came at Sinai through Moses, and this was the unique
and specifically Israelite element. 3 Many of the elements of the
older religion persisted, and everything was not wholly new
from the time of Moses. Nor was everything Canaanite finally
resisted and excluded. Some Canaanite practices were incor-
porated into the religion of Israel and made the vehicle of the
worship of Israel's God; other practices were resisted and re-
jected, because they were such that they could never be the
vehicle of the religion which Moses established. 4 On the other
hand, some of the older elements of Israel's pre-Mosaic re-
ligion, which were not eliminated by Moses, were gradually
eliminated in the course of time. Moreover, the recognition of
the significance of the work of Moses does not mean that the dis-
tinctive element in Israelite religion began and ended with him.
It finds incipient in his work all the great ideas which char-
acterized the religion, but it does not suppose that they were
then left to develop of themselves. Rather does it find that the
uniqueness of the work of Moses was continued by a unique
succession of men, who brought into the life of Israel a con-
1 For a criticism of a purely evolutionary understanding of the Old Testament cf.
W. Eichrodt's review of H. E. Fosdick, A Guide to the Understanding of the Bible,
1938, in J.B.L., Ixv, 1946, pp. 208 ff., summarized in translation by W. F.
Albright, pp. 205 ff.
2 This is stressed by Wright, op. cit.
8 Cf. Wright, ibid., p. 15: *I find it necessary to agree with W. Eichrodt when he
says that the source of the difficulty lies in the inability of the development
hypothesis to take seriously the story of God's revelation and covenant at Mt.
Sinai.*
4 Wright observes (ibid., p. 13) : * Canaanite religion was the most dangerous and
disintegrating factor which the faith of Israel had to face.'
Introduction 17
tinuous influence which derived neither from the past nor from
Canaan, but from God.
Any treatment of the religion of Israel, therefore, whether it
is called a history of the religion or an Old Testament theology,
must be marked by an historical sense, and by the recognition
that ideas and practices of various origin, and at various levels
of development, are to be found within the Old Testament.
Nevertheless, there is a real unity, for without this it would be
idle to speak in terms of the theology of the Old Testament.
That unity is not here conceived of as the unity of the Judaism
that emerged from the process, integrating into itself the various
elements and imposing on them a unity which derived from
itself, but as the unity of the development of the distinctive
faith of Israel. 1 Within that faith there were incipient ideas and
principles which became formulated with increasing clarity in
due course. The genius of Israel's religion is to be found in the
study of these. On the other hand, practices like blood revenge,
polygamy, levirate marriage, and the massacre of conquered
foes, were not specifically Israelite and were increasingly con-
trolled or fell into insignificance as time passed. While all of
these were religious in origin, and therefore properly belong to
the study of the religious development of Israel, they can claim
no place in an Old Testament theology.
Here, then, is a clear distinction between a history of
Israelite religion and an Old Testament theology. For the
former every religious idea and practice which marked any
period of the story demands foil consideration. For the latter
all that is not of the essence of the faith of Israel is irrelevant.
Here, however, we must beware of singling out all that is
acceptable to ourselves, and building an edifice on that alone,
while ignoring all that we do not like and labeUing it irrele-
vant.
If we take the cases I have mentioned, we may find some
instructive guidance. Blood revenge was gradually brought
under control, and in the latter part of the story it falls wholly
into the background. It was of very ancient origin and was
derived from the general background of Semitic culture out of
Gf. O. J. Baab, The Theology of the Old Testament, 1949, p. 25: 'While changing
with the passage of time, yet . . . Hebrew religion throughout the centuries
1 perpetuated itself as a distinctive way of life and belief/
1 8 The Faith qf Israel
which Israel came, 1 and was not part of any new and special
divine revelation given to Moses. Instead, as we trace its history
in the Old Testament we find that it was brought more and
more under control. 2 The distinction between murder and man-
slaughter was made, 3 and there was provision for sanctuary for
the unwitting killer of his fellow, 4 with arrangements for ad-
judication, while in the latest strand of the law we find pro-
vision for the ending of all existing blood feuds at the death of
the High Priest, 5 so that the manslaughterer could safely return
to his home. Polygamy was not peculiarly Israelite, and is no-
where directly condemned or repudiated in the Old Testament,
indeed, but there is little evidence of it in the later period of the
Old Testament, 6 or in the Judaism of the New Testament.
Levirate marriage, which sprang out of a wide background of
primitive practice, 7 is still provided for in the Deuteronomic
legislation, 8 but the only recorded examples of it in the Old
1 Blood revenge was of very much wider than Semitic origin. Cf. L. H. Gray, in
JSJt.E. 9 ii, 1909, pp. 720 ft". On blood revenge in early Arabian society, cf. W. R.
Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia^ New ed., 1903, pp. 25 ff., W. R.
Fatten, A.J. TA., v, 1901, pp. 703 ft, and J. Obermann, in The Idea of History in
the Ancient Near East, ed. by R. C. Dentan, 1955, pp. 253 ff. In its origin it allowed
the revenge to fall on any member of the group to which the murderer belonged,
and not necessarily on the murderer himself. It is possible that we have traces of
this in the Old Testament in Gen. 34.30 and II Sam. 21.5 f.
2 Cf. J. Pedersen, Israel /-//, E. Tr., 1926, pp. 395 ff., and A.-J. Baumgartner, in
WestphaFs Dutionnaire encyclopMique de la Bible, ii, 1935, pp. 816 f. Gf. also
A. R. S. Kennedy, in Z)J?,, ii, 1899, p. 223 b: *It is not too much to say that the
aim of the Hebrew legislator, from first to last, was so to regulate the practice
that the shedder of blood should be, as far as possible, protected from the hasty
and unconsidered vengeance of the next of kin*.
3 Cf. Ex, 21.12 ff., Deut. 19.6, 12. S. R. Driver, in E.B., ii, 1901, col. 174.6,
observes: * Already in the Book of the Covenant there is drawn the distinction
(which is not yet found in Homer) between intentional and unintentional homi-
cide, and the importance of the distinction is insisted on in all the Codes.'
Mohammed made the same distinction, but A. H. Harley, in E.R.E., ii, p. 733a,
observes that 'the modern Bedawi has preserved the nomadic institutions of the
tribal system and the blood-feud from the transforming influence Islam would
otherwise have exercised. With him the laws of vengeance for murder and
homicide are the same.*
4 At first the altar (Ex. 21.14; cf. I Kings 1.50, 2.28 ff.). With the limitation of
sacrifice to a single permitted altar came the provision of cities of refuge in
Deut. 19.1 ff. and Num. 35.9 ff., together with rules for adjudication, so that
the murderer might not be given the protection designed for the manslaughterer.
5 Cf. Num. 35.25, 28; Josh. 20.6.
* C W. P. Paterson, in JD J?., iii, 1900, pp. 264 f., where it is argued that there was
an implicit protest against polygamy within the prophetic school.
7 Cf. M. Burrows, B.AJS.O.R., No. 77, February 1940, pp. 2 ff. For other references
to literature cf. my Servant of the Lord, 1952, pp. 169 f.
8 CC Deut. 25.5 ff. In The Servant of the Lord, p. 170, 1 suggest the probability that
this passage reflects a limitation of a custom that was once wider in its range in
Israel.
Introduction ig
Testament are from the period before the establishment of the
monarchy. 1 Similarly, while we read much of the massacre of
conquered foes in the early period/ and find evidences of a
similar custom amongst Israel's neighbours, 3 in the later period
this ancient and widespread practice fell into desuetude. 4 The
genius of Israel's religion is not to be found in these practices,
or in others that could be mentioned, but in their control and
elimination, 5 The theology of the Old Testament must be based
on those elements of Israel's distinctive faith which, incipient at
first, were developed in her history, and on those ideas and
practices which, even though of older or alien origin, were
accepted permanently into her faith and made its vehicle.
While, therefore, an Old Testament theology must be
selective in its use of the Old Testament, it must not be arbi-
trarily selective. In the present lectures, which fall within the
1 Gf, Gen. 38 and the book of Ruth. Neither in the case of Judah and Tamar,
nor in that of Boaz and Ruth, do we have strictly levirate marriage, since in
neither case was the man the brother-in-law of the woman.
2 Gf. Num. 21.2; Deut. 2.34, 3.6; Josh. 6.17, 8.26, 10.28, 35, 37, 39, 40, ii.n,
12, 20, 21 ; I Sam. 15.3, 9, 20. On this practice cf. L. Delporte, Recherches de
Science Religieuse, 1, 1914, pp. 297 ff., and A. Fernandez, Biblica, v, 1924, pp. 3 ff.
8 Cf. The Moabite Stone, lines 14 ff., where Mesha says: 'And Kemosh said to me,
Go take Nebo against Israel. And I went by night and fought against it from the
break of dawn till the noontide, and I took it and slew all ... seven thousand
mfen] and . . and women and . . . and damsels, for I had devoted it to
Ashtarkemosh * (translation of G. A. Cooke, in North Semitic Inscriptions, 1903,
p. 3). W. F. Albright (From the Stone Age to Christianity) 2nd ed., 1946, p. 213) says:
The practice of devoting a recalcitrant foe to destruction as a kind of gigantic
holocaust to the national deity was apparently universal amonsf the early
Semites.' Gf. S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, 2nd ed.,
1913, pp. 130 f.
* The word occurs in the later literature, indeed. It is used in Jer. 50.26, 51.3, to
describe in prophecy the coming Chaldaean treatment of Jerusalem; in Isa.
34.5 to describe the coming divine judgement on Edom; in Isa. 43,28 to describe
God's judgement on Israel; in Mai. 4.6 (Heb. 3.24) to describe the averted
judgement on the earth; while in Zech. 14.11 Jerusalem is promised lasting
security against such treatment. But none of these are historical accounts of
Israel's practice of this ancient custom.
* In the Deuteronomic law the complete extermination of the Ganaanites is repre-
sented as enjoined by Moses; c Deut. 7.24 ff., 20.17. That this was not his-
torically carried out is clear from Judg. 2.3, 3.5 f. This Deuteronomic law was a
reflection of the later attitude towards Canaanite religion, rather than a reflection
of the current attitude towards the Canaanite people, who by that time had been
merged through intermarriage (cf. Deut. 3.6) with the Israelite people. It is,
indeed, probable that some of the above noted passages in Joshua are reflections
into past history of this attitude, though there can be little doubt that at Hormah
(Num. 21.2) and Jericho the ban was actually carried out. In Ex. 22.20
(Heb. 19) and Deut. 13.15 (Heb. 16) the ban is enjoined against Israelites who
are guilty of religious disloyalty, but here again an ideal attitude, rather than a
historical practice, is involved, and in any case this is quite different from the
extermination of conquered foes referred to above.
20 The Faith of Israel
field of Old Testament theology, there will therefore be no
attempt to discuss all the material found in the Old Testament,
or every belief which anyone in Israel ever had on the subjects
under discussion. There will be selection in accordance with the
dynamic principle already referred to. Moreover, since it is
impossible to present a complete biblical theology within the
compass of seven lectures, only a selection of the aspects of such
a theology can be here treated.
Any arrangement of the material is open to question. We
cannot treat fully of the Old Testament thought on God with-
out considering its teaching on salvation; yet before the full
thought on salvation can be examined, we must look at its
teaching on sin, and this once more involves its thought on God.
Whatever divisions of our subject are adopted, there is thus
bound to be an imperfectly satisfying choice as to where
material that is relevant to more than one section should be
placed. For whereas our treatment must be linear, our subject
is not. It treats of the relations between God and man and God
and the world and of the relations between man and his neigh-
bour, and these all subsist together and act and react on one
another,
I do not propose to single out one key idea in terms of which
to construct the whole, such as the covenant, or election, or
salvation, partly because I think no one of these, or even all
together, adequate, and partly because it is of the essence of the
Old Testament to deal not so much in abstract ideas as in ideas
which are embodied in concrete history. By this I do not mean
that the Old Testament presents us with a theology of history. 1
For there is no claim that all history gives a satisfying knowledge
of God or embodies his will. But what the Old Testament
repeatedly maintains is that God came to men through the
events of history to reveal his nature and his will. It is in
significant moments of history that revelation is found, and
for their detection and interpretation something more than the
history itself, and more than a patient reflection on the facts, is
required. In the first lecture it will be shown that history alone
is not the most significant medium of revelation in the faith of
1 Many writers use this expression, and G. Thils has published a long bibliography
of works treating of this subject (E.Th.L., xxvi, 1950, pp. 87 ff.). Cf. also R.
Criado, La Teokgia de la historic en el Antiguo Testamento, 1954 (extract from XIV
Smana Biblica E$paftola, pp. 35 ff.).
Introduction 2 1
Israel, and even in the great moments of history to which refer-
ence has been made there is something more than mere event.
The concepts of revelation and inspiration cannot here be
analysed. 1 Revelation is fundamentally the divine self-un-
folding, while inspiration lies in the use of human personality
for the declaration of the divine message. 2 Where there is
inspiration there must be personal factors, but revelation is not
necessarily given through persons. The Bible is throughout
based on the belief that God has unveiled to men something of
his own character and will, and that he has spoken through
men, in whose mouth he has put his own word. In Israel there
were many who claimed to have the word of God and to be
inspired by him, whose claim is denied by the sacred writers.
It is declared that their word had no deeper source than their
own heart. 3 Such a charge could always be made on both sides,
and if we had no more to go on than the unsupported claim to
inspiration, it would be hard to establish the genuineness of
inspiration, or to get behind the speaker to the God whose
word he claimed to utter.
The biblical faith is based neither on human reflection on
history, nor on human claims to be the mouthpiece of God, but
on both and more. For revelation through history and revela-
tion through persons are not independent of one another, but
often linked intimately together and offering a check on one
another, so that while we must always speak of a faith, rather
than of a logical demonstration, it is a faith which is intellec-
tually respectable and for which there is solid evidence. 4
From this it follows that the faith of Israel cannot be studied
in terms of ideas alone. Attention must constantly be drawn to
the concrete situation out of which the ideas sprang and to
which they were related, as well as to the divine revelation
which was given through the whole. In so far as there is revela-
tion of God there is something timeless and of enduring validity;
yet this timeless element is mediated through a historical
moment and historical circumstances. It is precisely here that
the essential difficulty of writing on Old Testament theology
lies. It is so much easier to confine our attention to a history of
1 Cf. H. Wheeler Robinson, Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament, 1946.
8 Cf. what I have written on this in The Authority of the Bible, 1950, pp. 5 f.
'Cf.Jer. 23.16.
4 Cf. The Unity of the Bible, pp. 8 ff.
22 The Faith of Israel
Old Testament religion than to attempt this separation, where
no simple rule of thumb can be relied on. Nevertheless, it seems
to me to be of the utmost importance and urgency to attempt
this task. For if God has indeed revealed himself, as the writers
of both Testaments firmly believed, then it is important that
men should apprehend this revelation. Behind the Bible, and
behind those significant moments of history, and behind the
great religious leaders of Israel, men believed that God stood,
and therefore through all there was a fundamental unity which
derived ultimately from Mm. Either this belief is wholly false,
or the inner unity within the revelation should be sought in a
theological study.
The Old Testament is not the whole of the Christian Bible,
and I find a unity running through the revelation of which we
have knowledge through both Testaments. 1 In these lectures s
however, our attention must be confined to those elements of
the revelation which were given to Israel during the period of
the Old Testament. Even here the treatment must be incom-
plete and selective. It is offered as a contribution towards a
theology of the Old Testament, supplementing some other
studies which I have published, 2 though in no sense completing
them.
At one point in the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, a
copy of the Bible was presented to Her Majesty, with the words
'Here is wisdom; this is the royal law; these are the lively
oracles of God/ It is in the faith that those words were not a
hollow formula, but that the Bible, including the Old Testa-
ment, can be soberly so described, and that therefore it is of
enduring significance to men, that these studies of its message
are offered.
1 Cf. what I have written on this in The Unity of the Bible,
2 Cf. The Relevance of the Bible, 19415 The Rediscovery of the Old Testament, 1946;
The Biblical Doctrine of Election, 1950; and The Unity of the Bible.
REVELATION AND ITS MEDIA 1
6 CANST thou fathom the secrets of God? >2 asked Zophar scom-
fiiily. His question clearly expected a negative reply, and such
a reply is in the fullest harmony with the faith of Israel. The
biblical doctrine of God is not the achievement of the philo-
sopher, arguing back to a first cause or an architect of the
universe, or seeking some pale abstraction of thought behind
all phenomena. It is not the personification of the powers of
Nature, or the blind acceptance of the gods from the remote
past. It rests on the belief that the God who is veiled from our
sight has revealed himself to men. There are, indeed, many
passages which call on men to seek God; but their thought is not
that by seeking man can find God for himself. Rather is it that
God can only reveal himself to those who will receive the
revelation, and will only give his fellowship to those who desire
it. The initiative is his, and the revelation can only come by
divine initiative. Yet it is no presumption to seek him humbly,
since he has called on men to seek Mm. 3 For his revelation of
himself is not forced on unwilling creatures, but given of his
grace to those who by eager sensitivity of spirit are open to
receive it.
1 Much of the substance of this lecture is similar to that of the G. J. Cadoux
Memorial Lecture which I delivered at Bradford in 1949, and which was pub-
lished in C,Q,., xxviii, 1949, pp. 248 ff.
8 Job 11.7. R.V. reads: 'Canst thou by searching find out God?' S. R. Driver
declares this rendering impossible (cf. Driver-Gray, Jo* (I.C.G.), 1921, p. 107),
and in Driver and Gray's Commentary the verse is rendered : 'Canst thou find
out the immensity of God?* (ibid). P. (E.) Dhorme (Job (E. Bib.), 1926, p. 145)
observes that the word fyeker denotes, not the process of investigation, but the
object of investigation, and renders: *Trouveras-tu la nature d'Eloah?' The
Vulgate rendering, which follows the Septuagint, has Forsitan vestigia Dei com-
prehendes, understanding the word to mean 'footprints'; but this does not quite
get the meaning. The rendering of R.S.V., *Can you find out the deep things of
God?' closely accords with that given above. A. S. Peake (Job (Cent.B.), p. 127),
has 'Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?' Cf. F. Stier (Ijjob, 1954,
p. 57) : 'Die Gotterjfriindung willst du finden?'
* Cf. O. R. Sellers, J.B.R., xxi, 1953, pp. 234 ff.
23
24 The Faith of Israel
This belief is fundamental to the Bible from Its very begin-
ning. In the earliest account of the creation God makes his will
known to man from the moment of his formation, 1 and later
we find Mm walking in the garden seeking Adam. 2 He is repre-
sented as appearing to the patriarchs and speaking with them
face to face. 3 That we are not to understand these narratives
literally is made plain in the Bible itself. For to Moses God says :
*Thou canst not see my face : for no man may see me and live,' 4
while In the New Testament it is declared that No man hath
ever seen God'. 5 In their vivid and picturesque narratives those
ancient stories are declaring the belief of the writers that God
has ever been willing to make himself known to men, and that
the initiative in revelation has always been his. In the moment
of his call Isaiah saw God in his vision/ and though there is no
suggestion that any eye but his of all who were assembled in
the Temple saw the vision, it was as real to him as any appear-
ance recorded as given to the patriarchs. To concentrate on
the naivete of the form of the early stories of the Bible is to miss
their spiritual profundity. They testify to the belief which pene-
trates the Bible as a whole, that God may be known to men
because he desires to be known, and because he has chosen to
reveal himself to them.
Similarly his will for men may be known because he has of
his grace chosen to communicate it. He has not left man to
stumble along in darkness, but has declared his will, and if
men do in fact stumble blindly along, it is because they have
been unwilling to receive his revelation or to obey his will. The
great chapter in the book of Job which declares that wisdom
will ever elude the search of men, says that God understands it
and declares it to men, who can find it in finding him. 7 Revela-
tion rather than discovery Is the keynote of the Bible, though
eager activity of spirit is enjoined upon men. How reasonable
is this faith we shall see as we proceed. Our first task, however, is
to examine the variety of the ways in which God was held to
reveal himself, and what in the thought of the Old Testament
were the media of revelation. 8
1 Gen. 2.16 f. * Gen. 3.8 f, 3 Gen. 12.7, 17.1 ff., 18.1 ff.
4 Ex. 33.20. * John 1.18. Isa. 6.1.
7 Job. 28.23, 27 f.
8 Cf. H. Wheeler Robinson, Redemption and Revelation^ 1942, pp. 95 flf., L. Koehler,
Theologu des Alien Testaments, 3rd ed., 1953, pp. 83 ff.
Revelation and Its Media 25
We may begin with the thought of revelation in Nature.
That biblical religion is not Nature worship scarcely needs to
be said. Some religions have personified the sun, the moon and
the stars, the winds and the streams and all the other powers of
Nature, and have given them worship. There are evidences in
the Old Testament that some in Israel followed this way, but
they stand condemned. 1 For nowhere is it the biblical faith
that worship is rightly to be given to them. The God of the
Bible is one who stands behind Nature and who controls it, but
who may use it to reveal something of his glory. 'The heavens
proclaim the glory of God, and the firmament declares his
handiwork.' 2 Amos speaks of God as him that made the
Pleiades and Orion, and turns deep darkness into the morning
and darkens the day into night; who calk for the waters of the
sea, and pours them out upon the face of the earth*. 3 Similarly
the first speech of God to Job from the whirlwind sets forth with
vivid brilliance the wonders of God's power as revealed in the
works of Nature, 4 and Ps. 104 has a similar theme. Deutero-
Isaiah asks 'Who measured the waters 5 in the hollow of his
hand s and meted out the heaven with the span, and contained
the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains
in scales, and the hills in a balance?* 6 and continues 'Lift up
your eyes on high, and see who created these, leading out their
host by number'; 7 while Hosea declares that it is he who gave
corn, wine and oil. 8
In all this there is nothing that is peculiar to Israelite faith.
It is an element of her faith which she shares with many others.
Similarly, we find elsewhere, as well as in the Old Testament,
the thought that God uses his control of Nature to express his
displeasure. In the time of David, when drought afflicted the
land, it was believed that some sin must be its cause, and the
sin was traced to a deed of Saul's many years before. 9 When that
deed was atoned for by the execution of seven of Saul's descen-
dants in Gibeah, God's favour was believed to be restored, and
he 'heard the entreaties for the land'. 10 The book of Deuteronomy
promises disaster when God is not obeyed. Thy heaven that is
1 Cf. II Kings 17.16, 21.3, 23.5; Jer. 8.2; Ezek. 8.16; Deut. 4.19, 17.3 ff.
2 Ps. 19.1 (Heb. 2). 8 Amos 5.8; cf. Ps. 8.3 (Heb. 4). 4 Job 38 f.
3 The Dead Sea Scroll, DSIa or iQIs a , reads 'the water of the sea*.
6 Isa. 40.12. 7 Isa. 40.26. Hos. 2.8. 9 1 Sam. 21.1 ff.
l0 IISam. 21.14.
26 The Faith of Israel
over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee
shall be Iron. Yahweh will make the rain of thy land powder
and dust : from heaven it will come down upon thee, until thou
art destroyed.' 1 Amos complains that men have not taken
warning from the disasters that God has sent, and have not
realized that they were sent to call them to repentance and
obedience. *I have smitten you with blight and mildew: I have
dried up 2 your gardens and your vineyards, and your fig trees
and your olive trees hath the locust devoured : yet have ye not
returned unto me, said Yahweh.* 3 Similarly when Joel de-
scribes the calamity brought upon the nation by the plague of
locusts, he continues 'Rend your hearts, and not your garments,
and return unto Yahweh your God: for he is gracious and com-
passionate, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy, and repents
of the evil. Who knows whether he will not turn and repent,
and leave a blessing behind him?' 4
/ Frequently the Israelites saw the hand of God in the natural
phenomena that helped them in the hour of need. To them they
were not chance coincidences, but the evidence that God was
active on their behalf. When Joshua marched to the help of the
Gibeonites, the fierce hailstorm that discomfited their foes
heartened the Israelites and assured them that God was with
them. 5 In the battle against Sisera, the sudden deluge that
reduced the plain to a morass and rendered the chariots of the
Canaanites a liability rather than an asset was the evidence of
God's presence with his people in the battle, and Deborah sang
The stars from their courses fought against Sisera. The torrent
Eashon swept them away, That torrent that came to our aid, 6
1 Deut. 28.23
a The Massoretic text has an. infinitive 'to multiply', which R.V., following the
Vulgate (multitudinem) renders *the multitude of. Most modern editors, however,
follow WelUiausen's emendation (Die kleinen Propheten, 3rd ed., 1898, p. 80),
which yields 'I have dried up*, or laid waste*. Gf. A. van Hoonacker, Les douze
Petits Prophetes (E. Bib.), 1908, p. 238.
8 Amos 4.9. 4 Joel 2. 1 3 f. * Josh, i o. ip f.
* The Hebrew word here is of very obscure meaning. The root means *to be
before* (either in time or place) or to come to meet*, or 'to be opposed to*. The
rendering of R.V. is 'that ancient river*. While this is a possible meaning, there
seems no special reason why this particular river should be so described. Some
editors render 'torrent of battles* (cf* K. Budde, Rickter (K.H.C.), 1897, p. 47; k
so also E. Konig, Hebr&isches und aram&isches WSrterbuch, 6th ed., 1936, p. 398 b).
This was already found in older writers; cf. J. Simon, Lexicon Mcamale Hebraicum
et Chaldaicum, 2nd ed., 1771, p. 853: torrens victoriarum. G. A. Cooke (The History
and Song of Deborah, 1892, p. 48, and Judges (Camb. B.), 1918, p. 64) renders
'onrushing torrent', and so R.S.V., but G.F. Burney (The Book of Judges, 2nd ed.,
Revelation and Its Media 27
the torrent Kishon.'^ In the time of Samuel, we read that when
the Israelites were gathered together at Mizpah and the
Philistines came against them, 'Yahweh thundered with a great
thunder on that day against the Philistines, and threw them
into confusion.' 2 To the Hebrews, as to many others, not only
was God behind the ordinary processes of Nature, the creator
and sustainer of the universe; he was active within those pro-
cesses, to use the more terrifying aspects of Nature to rebuke or
to help his people. 8
* In a number of passages in the Old Testament we find re-
flected the belief that God sometimes revealed his will to men
through the casting of the sacred lot, or through some form of
divination. 4 Behind such an idea is the belief that man can find
God's will by a technique, and we are in the world of magic.
The line between magic and religion is not always easy to
define, but broadly we may say that wherever there is the
belief that by a technique man can control God, or control
events, or discover the future, we have magic. Prophetic sym-
bolism has sometimes been thought of as magic. When Zedekiah
the son of Chenaanah made horns of iron and said 'With these
shalt thou gore the Syrians', 5 he doubtless believed that by the
act he was releasing, power which would be active for the
1920, p, 147) is doubtful whether such a sense can be maintained. He prefers to
follow A. B. Ehrlich (Randgkssen zur hebraischen Bibel, iii, 1910, p. 85) and emend
the text to read 'it faced them* (so also E. Sellin, in Festschrift Otto Procksch, 1934,
p. 1 6 1, p. Grether, Das Deboralied, 1941, p. 27, and B. Ubach, Josut-Jutges-Rut
(La Biblia Montserrat Bible), 1953, p. 236). A. Vincent (Juges (Jerusalem
Bible), 1952, p. 56) follows the reading of LXX A and renders *le torrent sacr*,
while A. Lods (La Bible du Centenaire, ii, 1947, p. 51) leaves the word untrans-
lated. By its formation it should be an abstract noun, giving the sense 'torrent of
confrontingness'. A cognate adjective in Arabic means 'first in attacking the foe,
gallant, dauntless', and if this Arabic sense could be sustained in Hebrew this
would give 'torrent of courage* or 'intrepid stream', and this sense was found by
H. Ewald (Die Dichter des Alien Bundes, I i, 1839, p. 131) . Without invoking Arabic,
however, the sense of the root in Hebrew makes it possible to give this word the
meaning of 'the quality of coming to attack', and so of 'intrepidity*. The phrase
could then be rendered 'that hostile torrent', or 'that heroic torrent*. On the
other hand, the cognate verb is sometimes used with the meaning of 'come to
help' (cf. Ps. 59.10 (Heb. n), 79.8; Deut. 23.4 (Heb. 5), and hence P.
Cassel (Richter wd Ruth (Lange's Bibelwerk), 1865, p. 57 b) (E. Tr. by P. H.
Steenstra, 1871, p. 102 b) renders 'helpful stream'. This seems to be the most
appropriate meaning for this context. The Kishon is hailed as the stream that
rose to the aid of Israel.
1 Judg. 5.20 f. * I Sam. 7.10.
8 For a study of the teaching of the Old Testament on Nature as the sphere of
divine activity, cf. J. L. McKenzie, C.-8.Q,., xiv, 1952, pp. 18 ff., 124 ft
4 Gf. E. Dhorme, R.H.R., cviii, 1933, pp. 119 ff,
* I Kings j22.ii.
28 The Faith of Israel
fulfilment of his word. Similarly, when Jeremiah made a wooden
yoke and wore it in the Temple, 1 he believed that his act was a
prophecy^ and that it released power, just as the prophetic
word was believed to release power. Wheeler Robinson dis-
tinguishes between prophetic symbolism and magic by observ-
ing that the prophet was acting under a constraint which he
believed to be of God, and that he was not therefore seeking to
control God by a technique, but was releasing power whose
source was God. 2 When the profession of action under divine
constraint was a cover for what had no deeper origin than the
prophet's own desire, as is sometimes declared to be the case in
relation to the false prophets, 3 we have nothing more than
magic. 4 But since the same act could be magic or prophecy
according to the degree of sincerity of the prophet's heart, the
line between magic and religion is manifestly hard to determine,
since sincerity cannot be measured by any simple tests.
/There are passages in which Urim and Thummim are re-
ferred to as a means of finding the will of God, 5 and it is possible
that in some other passages where the sacred lot is referred to,
it was by Urim and Thummim that it was consulted. /In this
connexiop the most instructive passage is found in I Sam.
14.41, where, however, the Hebrew text has suffered some loss,
and we must resort to the Greek text for a clearer notion. We
read that Saul put a question to God and found no answer. He
then framed the question differently, but again received no
answer. 6 He then decided to cast lots to find out where the
trouble lay. He first asked that if the evil lay in himself or
Jonathan the answer might be Urim, but if it lay in the people
it might be Thummim. 7 When the answer was Urim a further
ijer.2 7 f.
2 Cf. Old Testament Essays (read before the Society for Old Testament Study),
1927, p. 14; J.T.S., xliii, 1942, pp. 132 f.; and Redemption and Revelation, 1942,
p. 250 Cf. also L. H. Brockington, in Studies in History and Revelation, ed. by E. A.
Payne, 1942, p. 41. On Prophetic Symbolism cf. also D. Buzy, Les Symboles de
VAnden Testament, 1923; A. Regnier, R.B., xxxii, 1923, pp. 383 ff.; W. F. Loft-
house, A.J.S.L., xl, 1923-4, pp. 239 ff.; and G. Fohrer, Die symbolischen Hand-
fangen der Propheten (A.T.A.N.T.), 1953.
3 CJer. 23.16,26.
4 On magic in the Old Testament cf. A. Lods, in Old Testament Essays, 1927, pp.
3 Cf. I Sam. 28.6. I Sam. 14.37.
7 I Sam. 14.41. The Hebrew omits several words, jumping from the first occur-
rence of the word Israel' to the third. The word turnrnim was then meaningless,
and it was therefore pointed by the Massoretes as tamt m, and is rendered in R.V.
'(shew) the right*. The sense of the verse can be seen in R.S.V.
Revelation and Its Media 29
inquiry was necessary to determine whether it was in Saul or
in Jonathan. 1 Here we see that there were always two possible
answers, though there was a third possibility, that no answer
should be given. The Urim seems to have been the inaus-
picious answer, the word Urim coming from a root meaning c to
curse' 2 rather than from the root meaning light 5 as the Greek
translators understood it. Hence when the question was sus-
ceptible of the answer Yes or No, it is probable that Urim
meant No and Thummim Yes. But where the question offered
alternatives of a different kind, it was necessary to prescribe
beforehand how the reply would be understood. The precise
nature of Urim and Thummim can only be conjectured, but
the view which seems to me most probable is that they were
two flat stones, one side of which was the auspicious side and
one the inauspicious, so that if they both fell with the same side
upward the answer was given, while if they revealed different
sides there was no answer. 3 Be that as it may, the sacred lot
provided a mechanical means of finding out the will of God,
though its possibility of no answer meant that it was recognized
that man could not compel God to answer.
Divination was much more practised in Babylonia than it
was in the official religion of Israel. 4 In Babylonia there were
many classes of diviners, who claimed to be able to discover the
1 I Sam. 14.42.
2 This derivation was suggested by J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History
Israel, E.Tr. by Black and Menzies, 1885, p. 394 n. In its favour is the considera-
tion that Urim and Thummim would then be of the same formation, both from
geminate verbs. Gf. A. R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel, 1944, p. 9 n.
For a different view cf. E. Dhorme, La Religion des Hebrew Nomades, 1937, p. 237.
R. Press (g.A.W., li (N.F. x), 1933, p. 229) deprecates the attempt to establish
the etymology in the light of the significance of the Urim and Tliummim, but
agrees that Urim gave the inauspicious answer.
3 So H. P. Smith, The Religion of Israel, 1914, p. 122, and Oesterley and Robinson,
Hebrew Religion, 2nd ed., 1937, p. 166. A similar device was used in Chinese
divination; cf. H. Dor6, Recherches sur les superstitions en Chine, I ii (Varie'te's
sinologiques, N. 34), 1912, p. 243. A less probable suggestion is that they were
in the form of dice (cf. A. R. S. Kennedy, in D.B. 9 iv. 1902, p. 840 a), and still
less probable that one stone was called Urim and one Thummim (cf. G. F.
Moore, in E. B., iv, 1907, col. 5236), since in that case the use of plural names
would not be expected.
4 Gf. F. Lenormant, La Divination et la science des presages chez, les Chaldlen, 1875;
M. Jastrow, Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens, ii, 1912, pp. 2O3ff. ; L. W. King,
in E.R.E. , iv, 1 9 u , pp. 783 ff. ; A. Boissier, Ckoix de textes relatifs d la divination assyro-
babylonienne, 1905, and Mantique babylonienne et mantique hittite, 1935; E. Dhonne,
R.H.R., cxiii, 1936, pp. 125 ft, cxvi, 1937, pp. 5 ff.; A. Guillaume, Prophecy and
Divination, 1938, pp. 37 ff.; G. Gontenau, La Divination chez les Assyriens et les
Babyloniens, 1940; A. Haldar, Associations of Cult Prophets among the Ancient Semites,
1945, PP- * ff-
go The Faith of Israel
will of God or the future course of events by studying the liver
of slaughtered animals or some other phenomena. That
divination was practised in Israel is clear from the denunciations
of it which stand in the Bible, 1 and it may well be that there
were many varieties of diviners. 2 It has been claimed that the
prophets belonged to divining orders, 3 and that Amos was one
who practised hepatoscopy. 4 This seems to me to be without
warrant/ and we should distinguish between the popular
religion, which took over practices and beliefs current in the
world in which Israel was set, and the religion of the Old
Testament. It is hard to think that the greater prophets, who
brought so rich a contribution to the faith of Israel, practised
the divination which stands condemned both in the law and in
the prophetic books themselves. 6 Nevertheless, it must be re-
membered that Joseph is said to have had his divining cup, 7 and
therefore to have resorted to hydromancy. And there is no hint
of any condemnation of Joseph. Such traces of divination as
figure without condemnation, however, cannot be supposed to
be characteristic of the religion of the Old Testament, and even
the resort to the sacred lot is not the characteristic means of
learning the will of God. Where tiese things figure, they are
survivals of older and widespread ideas and practices which
1 Lev. 19,26; Deut. 18.10; I Sam* 15.23, 28.3; II Kings 17.17, 21.6. References
to the practice of divination may be found also in Isa. 3.2; Micah 3.11;
Jer. 27.9, 29.8; Ezek. 13.6, 9, 22.28; Zech. 10.2. Cf. T. Witton-Davies, Magic,
Divination and Demonology among the Hebrews and their Neighbours, 1898, and E.
Dhorme, R.H.R., cxiii, 1936, pp. 125 ff. } cxvi, 1937, pp. 5 ff.
* Dhorme (R.H.R., cviii, 1933, pp. 119 f.) brings Joshua's extended spear at Ai
(Josh 8.18), Jonathan's shooting of arrows to give a message to David (I Sam.
20.18 ff.), and Elisha's use of arrows in his death-bed scene (II Kings 13.14 ff,)
into relation with divination.
8 Cf. A. Haldar, op. cit., pp. 108 ff.
4 Cf. M Bi, V.T., i, 1951, pp. 293 fF. On hepatoscopy cf. G. Gontenau, La
Divination chez Us Assyriens et les Babylonians, 1940, pp. 235 ff. That Amos was a
cultic official has been affirmed by I. Engnell (SJB.U*, i, 1948, cols. 59 f.). Already,
in Stitdus in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East, 1943, p. 87, he had argued that
the wor4 nd&dh, which is used of King Mesha in II Kings 3.4 and of Amos in
Amos i.i, is proved by its use in Ugaritic (cf. Syria, xv, 1934,0. 241) to denote a
cultic official. Gf. Haldar, op. cit., pp. 79, 112. J. Bright (The Kingdom of God,
1953, p. 60 n.) observes that 'even granting that the words may on occasion have
had a cultic significance, this is no proof that they must always do so*. Gf. O.
Eissfeldt, in The Old Testament and Modern Study, ed. by H. H. Rowley, 1951, pp.
i23f. P. Haupt (JJLL., xxxv, 1916, pp. 280 ff,) denied that Amos had anything
at all to do with sheep.
3 Cf. A. Murtonen, V.T., ii, 1952, pp. 170 f.
8 That some prophets practised divinatory arts is, indeed clear from Micah 3.1 1 ;
Ezek. 13.6, 9, 22.28.
7 Gen. 44.2, 5.
Revelation and Its Media 31
Israel shared with many other peoples. We read little of Urim
and Thummim in the later portions of the Old Testament/
save as a part of the priestly insignia. 2 They survived, indeed,
but as fossils, though they may still have been occasionally con-
sulted, 8 as we find that even in the New Testament the sacred
lot is occasionally resorted to. 4 Mechanical and technical means
of finding the will of God must be included amongst the media
of revelation in Old Testament thought and practice, but they
have a relatively insignificant place, and are survivals from a
pagan past.
In a variety of ways God was believed to reveal himself
through the experience of men. Dreams were sometimes the
medium of such revelation. 5 In Jacob's dream at Bethel God
appeared unto him and spoke to him. 6 To Abimelech he
appeared in a dream and warned him against approaching
Abraham's wife. 7 It is possible that the story of the divine
direction to the patriarch to listen to Sarah's voice and to send
Ishmael away was intended to be understood as given in a
dream, 8 since we read that Abraham rose in the morning and
acted on the direction. 9 To Joseph dreams in which the future
was forecast were given, 10 and Pharaoh's baker and butler had
their fortunes indicated in dreams, 11 which, however, they were
unable to understand without an interpreter. Similarly,
Pharaoh had dreams in which God indicated the coming series
of good and bad years, 12 but he again had no clue to the mean-
ing of the dreams until the divinely inspired Joseph interpreted
them to him. At the beginning of his j*eign Solomon received a
1 Gf. A. R. S, Kennedy, in D.B. , loc. cit., p. 84(3 b ; *It cannot be a mere coincidence
that the use of Urim and Thummim is never mentioned in the historical narra-
tives after the time of David.' In the Talmud it is observed that Urim and
Thummim were lacking in the Second Temple (TB Yoma 21 b), and this was
probably a deduction from the non-mention of them in later historical narratives.
It is more likely to be a deduction than a tradition.
2 A. R. S. Kennedy, ibid., says: 'That the Urim and Thummim should reappear
in the scheme of the Priestly Code is not surprising. It is part of its ideal recon-
struction of the theocracy that the High Priest should be at all points fully
equipped for his office as the Divine vicegerent in the theocracy ... In any
case it is clear from the principal passage, Ex 28*, that it is rather a symbolical
than a practical significance that is attached to the mysterious contents of the
"pouch of judgment (or decision)"/
3 In Ezra 2.63, Neh. 7.65, the possibility of the future use of Urim and Thummim
is recognized, but we have no mention of any actual consultation.
4 Gf. Acts 1.26. Cf. i Sam. 28.6. Gen. 28.10 ff.
7 Gen. 20.3. 8 Gen. 21.12 f. * Gen. 21.13.
l Gen. 38.5 ff. ll Gcn. 40.5 ff. 18 Gen. 41.1 ff.
32 The Faith of Israel
divine message In a dream at Bethel. 1 In the book of Daniel we
again find dreams figuring as the medium whereby the future
was divinely unfolded. 2 Here ? once more, heathen kings needed
the help of Daniel to find the significance of their dreams, s and
even Daniel did not find the meaning of the vision of the four
beasts by Ms own skill in interpretation, but by the angelic
explanation which was itself part of the dream. 4
There are passages which indicate that the prophets some-
times received their messages through dream experience.
Jeremiah seems to discount this source of revelation, 5 and to
link it more particularly with the false prophets of his own day.
He complains that they caused men to forget God by the dreams
which they recounted, and continues: 'The prophet who has a
dream let him tell the dream; but he who has my word, let him
speak my word faithfully. 5 The possession of the word of God
would here seem to be contrasted with the dreaming of a dream.
In a familiar passage in the book of Numbers, however, while
Moses is contrasted with others in that God spoke to him
directly, and not in dreams, 7 it is recognized that to other
prophets genuine revelation from God could come through
dreams. 8 In all this, however, there is still nothing funda-
mentally unique in Israelite thought. Amongst other peoples
dreams have been held to be the medium of revelation, especi-
ally if the dream was experienced in a sacred spot, and the
interpretation of dreams has been elevated into a technique. 9
Sometimes revelation was found to come through some
chance experience, though here the experience was rather the
occasion than the source of the message. Amos saw a basket of
summer fruit, and his mind sprang from the word summer,
fcais, to the word end, fees, and a message of judgement was given
to him. 10 Similarly, at his call Jeremiah saw an almond tree in
blossom, and as he lingered to look on its beauty his mind
passed from the word for almond tree, skafcedh, to the word
waking, shd&dh, and a message to men was born in his mind. 11
In these cases the prophet was sure that it was by divine
1 1 Kings 34 ff.
2 Dan. 2.1 ff., 4.4 ff., 7.1 ff., 8.1 ff., 10 ff. 3 Dan. 2.25 ff., 4.8 ff.
4 Dan. 7.16 ff. * Jer. 23.27. Jer. 23.28. 7 Num. 12.6.
8 On the dream cf. E. L. Ehrlich, Der Traum im Alien Testament (B.Z.A.W. No. 73),
I953-
9 Cf. R. Follet, Verbttm Domini, xxxii, 1954, pp. 90 ff,
"Amos 8.1 ff. n jer. i.ii f.
Revelation and Its Media 33
activity within him that the transition of thought came. Not
always did the transition arise from some word play, as in these
cases. When Amos saw the man standing by the wall with the
lead in his hand, 1 or when Jeremiah saw the cauldron boiling
over as the wind from the north fanned the flame, 2 or the potter
at his wheel/ or the fig seller with two baskets of figs of very
different quality, 4 these things became parables charged with a
message to men, which the prophets believed to be a message
from God.
Here, once more, we have something not unrelated to what
may be found amongst other peoples. Professor Guillaume has
cited examples from Arabia, where one who was appealed to
for guidance on some problem let his eye light on any chance
thing and found in it the clue to the answer. 5 Here this method
was made a technique. The question was put to the technician
and he used this method to discover the answer. There are
cases in the Old Testament of resort to prophets with a question
to which an answer from God is sought. When Saul went to
Samuel to ask where his father's lost asses were, 6 or when
Jeroboam sent his wife to Ahijah to inquire whether their child
would recover, 7 it may be that the prophet employed some
technique to discover the answer, though of this we have no
information. Certainly in the cases found in the prophetic
books, there is no reason to suppose that some question was pre-
sented to the prophet and that he let his eye seek the answer in
this way. In all of them the initiative came from God, who
sought the prophet through some simple, or even chance,
experience.
To Hosea the divine revelation came through a more sus-
tained and more poignant experience. Few Old Testament
1 Amos 7.7 ff. The word ta ndk is rendered by 'plumbline* in the English Versions,
and this meaning is defended by J. Morgenstern, Amos Studies, i, 1941, p. 83, and
V. Maag, Text, Wortschatz und Begriffswelt des Buches Amos, 1951, p. 66. Cf. also
K. Cramer, Amos (B.W.A.N.T., iii, 15), 1930, p. 45. The LXX understood the
word to mean 'adamant*, and this is defended by A. Gondamin, R.B., ix, 1900,
pp. 586 ff., where it is argued that the picture is of one with a sword in his hand.
H. Junker (Biblica, xvii, 1936, pp. 359 ff.) objects to the rendering 'plumbline*,
on the ground that this is used only in building and not in destruction. He
therefore holds that what is in mind is molten lead, poured out as a destroying
stream. A. van Hoonacker (Les douze Petits Prophetes [E. Bib.], p. 266) took a
similar view, but changed the word Ijfanath ('wall') to fyammath ('heat') to accord
with it.
2 Jer. 1.13 ff. 8 Jer. 18.1 ff. 4 Jer. 24.1 ff.
5 Cf. Prophecy and Divination, pp. 117 ff. I Sam. 9.6. 7 I Kings 14.1 ff.
34 The Faith of Israel
questions have been more discussed, or have received a wider
variety of answers, than that of Hosea's marriage. 1 To discuss
it here is impossible, and I must be content to indicate that I
accept the view that the wife whom Hosea deeply loved was
unfaithful to him, and that her infidelity brought him intense
anguish yet without destroying his love, so that he found God
approaching him through his agony to illumine his mind with
an understanding of the depth of the divine love for Israel that
is unsurpassed in the Old Testament. Not by the things that he
saw, but by the things that he suffered, he was lifted into the
heart of God.
In aU this there is nothing to suggest that every experience is
sent by God or reflects his will. The prophets continually de-
clared that much was directly contrary to the will of God. The
murder of Abel, 2 of Uriah, 8 or of Naboth 4 could not be thought
of as anything but an offence against God. Not all human
experience is the medium of divine revelation. It is when God
chooses to make it the medium of revelation that it may become
so, and before it can become so there is needed a man of
sensitive spirit to receive the revelation.
Similarly, in the life of the community, while it was believed
that God could use the corporate experience to express his
warning or approval, it is nowhere suggested that all human
history reflects his will, or that history in itself is the medium of
revelation. For its interpretation a prophetic person was needed,
just as much as for the dream. It was believed that God could
speak thus to men, not only by his control of the forces of
Nature, but by the fortunes of the nation at the hands of its
neighbours. The Deuteronomic school believed that defeat in
war and oppression at the hands of alien powers could be the
instrument of divine rebuke for disloyalty and apostasy, 6 and
the prophets of the pre-exilic age frequently promised conquest
and suffering at the hands of the great contemporary powers as
the consequence of the disobedience to God which they dis-
cerned in the life of their times. They were not teaching a
1 For a brief indication of the variety of answers and of the writers who have given
them, cf. The Servant of the Lord, p. 1 15 f. This is treated more fully in a paper to
be published in B.J.R.L., September, 1956.
* Gen. 4.6. * II Sam. 1 1.14 ff. 4 I Kings 21.8 ff.
* Cf. Deut. 28.7 ff., and the recurring formula in the framework of the book
of Judges, indicating that foreign oppression followed religious infidelity.
Revelation and Its Media 35
passive resignation to all as the will of God* but seeking to make
the experience spiritually profitable, and to rouse men to the
active seeking for God and obedience to his will.
Yet another medium of revelation was the written word. In
the story of Sinai the first tables of stone were written by the
finger of God, 1 but when these were destroyed by Moses in his
anger they were rewritten by the hand of Moses. 2 Their content
was still the revelation of God's will. In the time of Josiah a
lawbook was found in the Temple, 3 and it immediately became
the basis of the reform which Josiah seems already to have
begun, as the religious side of his bid for freedom when the
Assyrian empire was tottering to its fall. The lawbook was
believed to have divine authority, and to express God's will for
the nation. When Ezra came from the Persian court to Jeru-
salem he carried a lawbook in his hand, 4 and while he had
authority from the Persian king to put its provisions into effect,
it was believed to derive its real authority from God. Both of
these lawbooks are believed to be embodied in the Pentateuch,
and many other books beside the Pentateuch gradually came
to be regarded by the Jews as sacred, until the collection which
we know as the Old Testament came into being. Of the variety
and richness of its contents there is no need to speak here. It
preserved the work of historians, prophets, singers and sages.
But beyond that it was believed to preserve the word of God.
It was not merely an anthology of the wisdom of Israel. It was
treasured as a religious collection, through which God spoke to
men.
The prophet Jeremiah appears to have been an enthusiastic
supporter of Josiah's reform, 5 and to have gone through the
land advocating the acceptance of the lawbook that had been
found. But he became less enthusiastic later, when he realized
that just as false prophets could speak a word which had no
deeper foundation than their own hearts, so a written word
could be made the vehicle of human thoughts while purporting
to be the word of God. He spoke of the lying pen of the scribes
which falsified the word, 6 and saw that a written word was
open to abuse no less than a spoken. Like all the prophets he
1 Ex. 31.18. *Ex. 34.1, 4. * II Kings 22.8. * Ezra 7.14.
5 Cf. Studies in Old Testament Prophecy (ed. by H. H. Rowley), 1950, pp. 171 flL
where this disputed question is discussed.
'Jer.8.8.
36 The Faith of Israel
was more eager to see the submission of heart and life to the
will of God than any formal observance of rites and cere-
monies, and he looked for the day when God's word should
be inscribed on men's hearts, and belong to the very texture of
their personality. 1 To him the final revelation of God was not
to be sought in a book, but in personality. Nevertheless we must
include the written word in the media of revelation in Old
Testament thought. To the Jews this whole collection brought
the revelation of God, and the Pentateuch was especially
sacred as the vehicle of the expression of his will. The Christian
Church accepted the Old Testament from Judaism, and con-
tinued to regard it as a far more significant medium of revela-
tion than any of those others so far mentioned.
The sacred book is not peculiar to Israel, however, and other
religions regard the written word as the medium of revelation.
Especially is this so with Mohammedanism, which carries the
belief in the verbal inspiration of the Qur'an to the extreme.
I have said that to Jeremiah the final revelation of God was
to be sought in personality, and he looked forward to the day
when that revelation would be universal. Meanwhile, such
revelation was found in outstanding personalities. For certain
purposes the king was, or at any rate should be, the instrument
of God's will. When he was en rapport with the spirit of God, the
national well-being was thought to be assured. The spirit of
God was believed to be in him, directing him. He was the
anointed of God and as such he represented God to the nation
in some aspects of its life. He also represented the nation before
God, and its life was bound up intimately with his. 2 Not all
kings were thus en rapport with the spirit of God, and many stand
1 Jer. 31.31 ff. This passage is denied to Jeremiah by some modern editors (so
B. Stade, Geschichte des VoVces Israel, and ed., i, 1889, pp. 646 f. n., R. Smend
Lehrbuch der alttestammtlichen JReligionsgeschwhte, and ed., 1899, PP* 2 49 &* an< ^
B. Duhm, Jeremia (K.H.C.), 1901, pp. 254 f.). Others, however, defend its
authenticity, and I am of their number (so F. Giesebrecht, Jeremia (H.K.), 1894,
p. 165, A. S. Peake, Jeremiah and Lamentations (Cent. B.), ii, pp. 68 ff., 101 ff.,
A. W. Streane, Jeremiah and Lamentations (Camb. B.), 1913, p. 195, L. E. Binns,
Jeremiah (West. G.), 1919, pp. 241 ff., J. Skinner, Prophecy and Religion, 1922
pp. 320 ft, G. A. Smith, Jeremiah, 3rd ed., 1924, pp. 374 ff., P. Volz, Jeremia
(K.A.T.), 2nd ed., 1928, p. 284, F. Notscher, Jeremias (H.S.A.T.), 1934, p. 236,
W. Rudolph, Jeremia (H.A.T.), 1947, pp. 170 f.). Peake (op. cit, p. 70) expresses
*an unshaken conviction that though in its present form we may owe it to
Baruchj the prophecy itself comes from Jeremiah and from no other, and is the
worthy crown of his teaching."
* On the position of the king and its significance cf. J. Pedersen, Israel III-IV, 1940,
pp. 76 ff.
Revelation and Its Media 37
condemned. They are condemned not merely because they were
bad men, but because by being such they failed to fulfil the
true function of their kingship.
Beside them were priests, who again by their function were
designed to be media of revelation. There were bad priests, as
there were bad kings, who did not fulfil their function, and we
are accustomed to think of priests as inherently evil. We
should not forget that there were bad prophets, who also stand
condemned, and we should not think of prophets only at their
best and of priests only at their worst. The priest was not
merely the technician of sacrifice. The sacred lot was consulted
through him. 1 He was also the custodian of sacred tradition, able
to give guidance in innumerable ways to men in the ordinary
affairs of life. To him men went for tdrdh, for instruction in the
way of God. 2 The statutes and ordinances of God were in his
charge, in days before any written word was available to them.
He was the arbiter of justice in a wide variety of cases, and the
administration of justice was a religious function in Israel. 8
For justice truly administered was the expression of the will of
God.
More significant than king or priest for us, however, is the
prophet. Like the king and the priest, he was not peculiar to
Israel. 4 The Egyptian story of Wen-amon brings before us a
prophet similar to some of the early Israelite prophets, who was
found at Byblos in the eleventh century B.C. 5 Moreover, we
now have evidence of prophets at Mari much earlier than
this. 6 The beginnings of prophecy in Israel were not all very
exalted. The ecstatic groups which figure in the story of the
time of the founding of the monarchy were not composed of
1 Cf. I Sam, 14.36 ff.
2 On the meaning oftdrdh, cf. H. Wheeler Robinson, in Law and Religion, ed. by
E. I. J. Rosenthai, 1938, pp. 50 ff., and G. Ostborn, Tord in the Old Testament,
I 945-
s Cf., e.g., Ex. 18.16.
4 Cf. A. Neher, V Essence du Prophe'tisme, 1955, PP- J 7 ff - aiK * N. H. Ridderbos,
Israels Profetie en 'Profetie* buiien Israel, 1955.
5 The story of Wen-amon may be found in English translation in A. Erman, The
Literature of the Ancient Egyptians, E.Tr. by A. M. Blackman, 1927, pp. 174 ff., or
in A.N.E.T., 1950, pp. 25 ff. (translated by J. A. Wilson).
Cf. A. Lods, in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy, ed. by H. H. Rowley, pp. 103 ff.;
M. Noth, B J.R.L., xxxii, 1949-50, pp. I94~ff, and Geschichte und Gotteswort im
Alien Testament, 1950; F.M.Th. de Liagre Bohl, in Ned.T.T., iv, 1949^50,
82 ff.; W. von Soden, Die Welt des Orients, 1950, pp. 397 ff.; and H. T *
Th.L.%., Ixxvi, 1950, cols, 64 ff.
38 The Faith of Israel
men of the stature of the greater prophets. When Saul was
caught up into a prophetic frenzy, he stripped off his clothes
and rolled about on the ground all night naked. 1 When we find
Mm liable to break out into fits of uncontrolled passion indis-
tinguishable from madness, so that he could hurl javelins at
people who happened to be before him, the same verb is used
which elsewhere describes the behaviour of the prophet. 2 If this
were all there were to prophecy, it would not provide a very im-
pressive medium of divine revelation. There would not appear
to be much to differentiate this type of prophecy from that of
the Baal prophets who danced about and gashed themselves
with knives. 3 The Hebrew prophets were the devotees of
Yahweh as the Baal prophets were the devotees of their god,
and both believed that they were acting under the influence of
their deity.
The essence of prophecy is not to be found in its forms of
manifestation, 4 however, and when we come to the higher
prophecy which is found in the great figures of the Old Testa-
ment, it is not of the behaviour of the prophet that we think.
Some modern writers have claimed that all the prophets were
ecstatic, 5 and that every oracle was received by the prophet in
some abnormal experience. While this seems to me very im-
probable, it is undeniable that even the great prophets acted
sometimes in ways that would be thought strange today. When
Jeremiah appeared in the Temple wearing a wooden yoke, 6
his behaviour was similar to that of Zedekiah the son of
Chenaanah, who appeared before Ahab wearing horns of iron. 7
Isaiah walked the streets of Jerusalem naked and barefoot, 8 and
Ezekiel performed many strange acts. But when we think of the
prophets we think rather of the content of their message than of
the forms whereby it was proclaimed. When the Old Testament
offers us any clear indication of the essence of prophecy, it does
so in terms of the utterance of the divine word. When Aaron is
1 I Sam. 19.24. a I Sam. i8.iof . * I Kings 18.28.
4 Gf. my study of 'The Nature of Old Testament Prophecy in the Light of Recent
Study 1 , in The Servant of the Lord, pp. 91 ff,
& Gf. H, Gunkel, The Expositor, gth series, i, 1924, p. 538; 'The fundamental ex-
perience in all types of prophecy is ecstasy'; W. Jacobi, Die Ekstase der alttesta-
mentlichen Propheten, 1920, p. 4; *Die Ekstase zum Wesen des Propheten gohdrt*.
On this view cf. the reserves I have expressed in the above mentioned article.
Cf. also P. van Imschoot, The'ologie de VAncien Testament^ i, pp. 1 70 ff.
9 Jer. 27 f. 7 I Kings 22.1 1. * Isa. 20.2 f.
Revelation and Its Media 39
called the prophet of Moses, with Moses playing the part of
God to Mm, it is made clear that this means that Moses will
give Aaron the content of his message, which Aaron will then
deliver. 1 The prophet is described as one who is privileged to
stand in the council of God, 2 and who therefore* understands
his will. At his call Jeremiah is assured that God has put Ms
words in his mouth, 8 and when Jeremiah condemns the fake
prophets it is because they speak their own word and not God's. 4
The essential function of the prophet was conceived to be the
mediation of a word which he received by divine inspiration.
He was the mouthpiece of God bringing some ad hoc word
relevant to the circumstances of the moment when he delivered
it. But since the inspiration came through the organ of the
prophet's personality, it bore the marks of that personality as
well as of the God who was its source. Hence not all the pro-
phets were of the same stature, and there are varieties of level
even within the prophetic books.
Other religions provide examples of prophetic personality,
and we may recognize a genuine prophetic character in Con-
fucius and Buddha and Zoroaster and Mohammed. What gives
to Old Testament prophecy its unique quality is the richness of
the divine revelation mediated through its greater figures. The
prophets were far from perfect men, and we have no need to
idealize them to heighten their glory. They were men who
knew the intimacy of fellowship with God to whom something
of his spirit was given, men who looked on the world in the
light of what they had seen in the heart of God, men who spoke
because they had to and not because they wanted to, upon
whom the constraint of God had been laid, and men who
delivered a word not alone relevant to the needs of the hour,
but of enduring importance to men. Just as we must penetrate
beneath the outward behaviour of the prophet to his inner
spirit, so we must strip his word of that which ties it to the
situation of his day and perceive its enduring content which
may be clothed afresh in the terms of our contemporary situa-
tion, before we can realize his true significance.
r Ex. 7.1 ;cf. 4.16.
* Cf. Amos 3.7; Jer. 23.18, 22. * Jer. 1.9.
* Jer. 23.16, 21, 26. On the false prophets cf. G. von Rad, Z.A.W., li (N.F.x),
1933, pp. 109 ff., K. Harms, Dufalschen Propheten, 1947, and G. Quell, Wahn tmd
falsche Propheten (B.F.G.Th., xlvi,i), 1952.
40 The Faith of Israel
None of the media of revelation so far mentioned is unique
In kind in the Old Testament. We may regard the content of the
revelation as superior to that given in other religions, and at the
content we shall look in the succeeding lectures. But there is
nothing unique about the media. Revelation in Nature or
through divination, through a written word or through ex-
perience, or through inspired leaders, can be found elsewhere,
and it is often thought that there is nothing unique in biblical
revelation, save in the loftiness of its content. We think of it as
prophetic religion because it was mediated through Moses and
the prophets and through our Lord; and we think of it as
revelation which came through history. What is less often
realized is that there is a unique medium of revelation found
in the Bible. This is a combination of historical and personal
factors which dovetail into one another. To this I have more
than once directed attention, 1 and it is both relevant and im-
portant to do so again here. Beyond revelation through pro-
phetic personality, which is found constantly in the Old Testa-
ment, we find revelation through a complex of personality and
eveftt in certain moments of special significance in the biblical
story.
The first of these concerns the Exodus from Egypt. We may
read this simply as a historical event, and find in it one of the
biblical examples of the activity of God on the plane of history.
We then see in the story no more than the Israelite idea that
God had come to their help, just as other peoples have often
believed their God came to their help. In the days of the Spanish
Armada our fathers cried 'He blew with his winds and scattered
them'. In the deliverance from Egypt the wind is said to have
played a part, 2 and the sceptic may dismiss the one claim as the
other by supposing that a chance circumstance of Nature
happily coincided with the need of people, who then turned
their good fortune into a supposed act of God. But the deliver-
ance from Egypt was quite different in character from the
deliverance from the Armada, and while I am prepared to find
/the hand of God in many events of history, I am not prepared to
ignore the peculiar elements in the story of the deliverance under
Moses in order to equate it with what is essentially different.
1 Cf. The Authority of the Bible, pp. 12 ff., and The Unity of the Bible, pp. 16, 66.
* Ex, 14,2 la, 26 f.
Revelation and Its Media 41
The story of the deliverance from Egypt does not at
the point where the Israelites stood before the sea with the
pursuing hosts of Pharaoh behind. It begins with the divine
commission to Moses to go into Egypt to bring the people out. 1
In the wilderness this man had a great spiritual experience
which left him in no doubt that Yahweh was sending him into
Egypt to bring the Israelites out. I am not concerned to explain
or to rationalize the incident of the Burning Bush 3 but merely to
recognize the essential fact that Moses was sure God was call-
ing him to this task. To some scholars Moses has seemed an un-
historical character, 2 but it seems incredible to me that he
could have been created by chance tradition. In many ways
tradition may have developed the story, but in its broad lines
it seems to me to bear the marks of its own truth. Moses is said
to have belonged to the people who were oppressed in Egypt,
and to. have fled from Egypt into the wilderness. This might
seem to offer some explanation of his return to lead the people
out, but it offers no explanation of his doing so in the name of a-
God called Yahweh. The Bible itself declares that the people in
Egypt would not recognize this as the name of their God, 3 and
this is borne out by the fact that after their deliverance they
make a covenant with this God. Yahweh sends Moses into
Egypt and adopts the oppressed Israelites as his people. Such
a story is hardly likely to have been invented by the Israelites. 4
Had they invented the story they would have been more likely
to ascribe their deliverance to the God they had hitherto
1 Ex. 3.7 ff.
2 Gf. H. Winckler, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, 3rd ed., 1903, p. 209;
E. Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstamm, 1906, p. 451, n.; G. Hokcher,
Geschichte der israelitischen undjiidischen Religion^ 1922, pp. 64 ff. M. Noth allows him
but a small and nebulous place in history. He says (Geschichte Israels, 2nd ed.,
1954, p. 128) : *Mose mit dem Sinaivorgang geschichtlich nichts zu tun gehabt
hat. Ihn als den Organisator und Gesetzgeber Israels zu bezeichnen, ist danach
geschichtlich kaum haltbar. Auch darin also bleibt der Sinaivorgang fur uns
geheimnisvollj dass wir keine menschliche Gestalt zu nennen wissen, die in das
dort Geschehende handelnd oder deutend eingegriffen hatte.*
* Ex. 6.3.
4 P. Volz, when he published the first edition of his Mose (1907), was uncertain
whether any historical event lay at the foundation of the religion of Israel. He
said (p. 88) : 'Unsicher ist, ob die Religionsstiftung auf irgend einem geschicht-
lichen Ereignis fusst und auf welchem'. In the second edition (1932), however,
he revised his opinion, and said : 'Die mosaische Religion und damit die gesamte
alttestamentliche Religion ist eine geschichtliche Religion, nicht cine Natur-
religion. Sie ist an einem bestimmten Ort zu einer bestimmten Zeit vom einem
bestimmten Person in einem bestimmten Verband gegrundet worden. Sie
beruht auf geschichtlichen Tatsachen' (p. 72).
42 The Faith of Israel
worshipped. Had the mission of Moses arisen merely from his own
heart and his sympathy with his suffering fellows, he might
have been expected to present himself before them in the name
of their God. Instead he went with the confidence that he was
sent by Yahweh. Arrived in Egypt he promised them a deliver-
ance which he was powerless to achieve, and which was not
to be achieved by their efforts. Indeed, their efforts play no
part whatever in the story. He speaks as a prophet, announcing
a word of God. His word is not like that of many a commander
before a battle, promising the help of God, and stimulating
men to superhuman bravery, so that while they might attribute
their deliverance to God they could not but feel that they, too,
had had some part in it. His word promises a deliverance which
neither he nor they can bring to pass. When they are actually
on the way out of Egypt and Pharaoh pursues them, Moses
again promises deliverance, but not by his own hand or theirs.
The people do not turn to fight Pharaoh and vanquish him. If
they had done so, we may be sure their traditions would have
cherished the memory of it. The deliverance came by the
timely help of wind and wave a clearing a way across the sands
by which they could escape but covering it again before the
chariots of Pharaoh could follow them to the other side. To
regard this timely help as a chance coincidence offers no ex-
planation of the return of Moses to Egypt, or the confidence he
had known that Yahweh would deliver the people. Neither
could his confidence control the powers of Nature and bring
about the timely help. Both sides of this story must be remem-
bered. There was the prophetic personality of the man who
appeared in the name of God to promise a deliverance he and
the Israelites were helpless to effect; and there was the historic
event of the deliverance which responded to his prior promise.
There was more than the chance coincidence of help in the
nick of time. There was also the strange fact that this timely
help vindicated the prior faith of a man who profoundly be-
lieved that he was the mouthpiece of God. Discount either side
of this and the story is left more incredible than it is in the
Bible. No people would invent the story that their fathers had
been oppressed slaves in a foreign land if it were not true. No
people would invent the story that it had been delivered by a
God it had not hitherto worshipped if it had not strong grounds
Revelation and Its Media 43
for believing that it was true. And no man would needlessly
complicate his task of delivering a company of slaves by the
strange story that he had been sent by a god whose name they
had never acknowledged as the name of their god unless he
had been profoundly convinced that this was true. Discount the
call of Moses, and we are left with no reasonable explanation of
his strange errand, or basis for his confidence of success that no
material power was at any point invoked to achieve.
This story, in which personal and impersonal factors are
woven together, in which God's control of Nature and activity
in history are combined with his activity through prophetic
personality, carries in its texture a revelation of the character
of God at which we must look in the next lecture. Moses, who
had announced the delivery, also interpreted its significance;
but the significance is not artificially imposed upon the story.
Nor does this story stand alone, though it- is by far the most
important in the whole of the Old Testament. We may look
more briefly at two other examples.
In the time of Deborah, the Israelites north and south of the
Vale of Esdraelon were being reduced to subjection piecemeal
by their Canaanite neighbours. 1 This prophetess, acting under
a constraint which she believed to be of God, took the lead in
bringing together a gathering of many Israelite tribes from
both sides of the vale, in the confidence that God would aid
them. Their foes were far better armed and equipped with
dreaded chariots, and all the advantages apparently lay with
them. Yet in the battle a great and resounding victory was won
by the Israelites. At first sight this might seem to be an ordinary
case of using religion to stir the valour of men, and so to create
a morale that then issued in victory. Here, however, the most
important factors were not the human factors, and though
human valour was displayed the victory was primarily due to
natural forces which came to the help of Israel. A sudden deluge
turned the plain into a morass, and rendered the chariots a
liability, and the Kishon was rapidly turned into a flood which
swept away those who tried to cross it. It was not Sisera's bad
generalship, or Israelite military genius, which gained the
victory, but forces wholly beyond man's control. And once
more these conditions occurred in response to the prophetic
44 The Faith of Israel
word of Deborah, as well as In the moment of Israel's need. It
is easy to offer a psychological explanation of victories gained
under the impetus of religious enthusiasm kindled by a prophet.
But no psychological explanation will suffice here, since the
weather is not subject to psychological control. Nor will any
theory of coincidence suffice, since coincidence could not ex-
plain the prior faith and promise of Deborah.
The second example is the deliverance of Jerusalem from
Sennacherib in the time of Hezekiah. When the foe had over-
run all the surrounding country and his armies proudly stood
before the gates of the city demanding surrender, Isaiah coun-
selled the king not to yield and promised deliverance. 1 No
calculation of resources could have inspired his confidence, nor
can the prophet be supposed to have been a rabid nationalist
who blindly trusted in the fortunes of his people. Isaiah could
often denounce his own people, and more often uttered the un-
popular word than the popular. He had opposed the rebellion
against Assyria, and had warned that it could lead to no good.
Yet when disaster was almost complete, he had confidence.
That confidence was wholly prophetic confidence. That is to
say, it was confidence born of a constraint which he believed
to be of God, and it was confidence in God. He did not summon
men to activity and heroism, but to quiet waiting for the salva-
tion which God would achieve. 2 Here, as in the case of the
deliverance from Egypt, the people of the city played no real
part in the deliverance. All they were called to do was to have
confidence and see the salvation of God. This time it was
brought about by a plague which broke out in the camp of
Sennacherib and carried off large numbers of his troops. 8 This
is not the only time in history in which sickness has determined
the issue of a campaign, nor even the only time when this has
happened in that particular part of the world. 4 Like wind and
weather, plague was beyond human control, and Isaiah's con-
fidence could not bring it about. But here, once more, no
theory of a chance coincidence can offer an explanation. It
1 Isa. 37.21 ff. 8 Isa. 30.15.
3 Isa. 37.36, where the destroying angel is symbolic of the plague, just as in
I Sam. 224.16, the sparing of the city of Jerusalem from the plague which had
spread elsewhere through the land is symbolized by the stopping of the angel at
the threshing floor of Araunah.
4 Cf. G. A. Smith, The Historical Geography of the Holy Land, aand ed., pp. 157 ff.
Revelation and Its Media 45
cannot explain the prior faith and promise of Isaiah, who
spoke not in his own name, but God's, and not as one who could
invoke God's name to give a spurious authority to Ms own
wishes, but as one whose whole prophetic career proved the *
sincerity of his faith.
In both of these examples, though in different ways, as also
in the example of the Exodus, we find personal and impersonal
factors woven together in what the Hebrews believed to be
God's manifestation of himself. The medium of revelation here
is not to be found in the separate factors, but in their combina-
tion into a single complex.
Such a complex we find also in the New Testament. My
theme in these lectures is the Old Testament, but I may be for-
given if I occasionally pass over into the New, since I am per-
suaded that the two Testaments belong together. Christians
see in Jesus one who is a prophet and more than a prophet,
through whom the revelation of God comes in human per-
sonality. That revelation is given not only in his life and word,
however, but also in his death a death which was brought
upon him by the action of his enemies. This does not mean that
death was the interruption and frustration of his work. On the
contrary, it was its crown and climax. Before it took place he
had foreseen it, and had assured his disciples that it would be
charged with unique power. 1 That his death has been charged
with unique power is a matter of history. Once again, therefore,
we have the prior word of one who claimed to speak the word
of God and the vindication of Ms word in a subsequent history,
wMch his word could not control unless it really was the word
of God. Those who put Mm to death expressed in that act the
evil purpose of their own hearts, and believed that they were
extinguisMng him and his claims. Not through natural forces
or disease did the factors independent of the prophetic per-
sonality of Jesus come in here, but through the malevolence of
other men. The supreme revelation of the love of God and the
supreme demonstration of the power of God in salvation, sub-
sequently proved in the experience of countless millions of men,
came in this combination of person and event, and the pattern
of revelation is similar to that of the manifestations of God's
power at wMch we have looked in the Old Testament.
Mark 8.31, 9.31, 10.45, a* 1 ** parallels; cf. John 12.32.
46 The Faith of Israel
Moreover, this revelation is not unrelated to that given in
the Old Testament. It is both impossible and unnecessary here
to speak of all the ways in which Old Testament hopes are
fulfilled in Christ and his Church. In the Old Testament we
find the prophetic delineation of the Suffering Servant/ whose
mission should be fulfilled by the organ of his death, and who
was charged with the task of carrying the light of the true
religion through all the world. 2 His death is described as a
sacrifice, 8 superior to any offered in the Temple in that it was
the offering of one who was without moral blemish, 4 and wider
in its efficacy in that it availed for Gentiles who confessed that
his sufferings should really have been theirs. 5 In remarkable
ways this finds its realization in Christ, whose death has been
the organ of his world-wide mission, and before whose Cross
multitudes have felt that the words the prophet put in the
mouths of men who saw the sufferings of the servant were
alone adequate to express their confession. There is the pro-
phetic anticipation and the subsequent fulfilment in history that
the prophet himself was powerless to effect by any human
means, and personal factors and factors objective so far as the
prophet himself was concerned are interwoven together. In the
other cases the prophetic word and the vindication in history
were closely linked in time. Here they were widely separated in
time, but the pattern of revelation was the same. The fulfilment
of the prophetic hope came in the person of Jesus, in whose
life and death we have found the supreme example of the same
pattern in swifter succession. 6
Moreover, it is not without significance that the sacrifice of
the Servant stands in the prophetic canon. The sacrifices pre-
scribed in the law continued until this prophecy of a greater
and more efficacious sacrifice was fulfilled in Christ. To his
followers his death gathered into itself the meaning of all lesser
1 Isa. 52.13-53.12. a Isa. 49.5.
* Isa. 53.10. We have not merely the use of the word 'dsham in this verse, but the
sacrificial character of the thought of the whole song; cf. The Unity of ikt Bible,
PP- 55 f-
4 Isa. 53.9. Isa. 53.4 f.
8 It is important to observe that this is not merely a simple prediction and its
fulfilment. The prediction gathers into itself various elements of Old Testament
thought, and is linked with both the sacrificial and the missionary ideas found
elsewhere. The fulfilment gathers into itself not alone this passage, but others
also, and the response to the thought and promise of the Old Testament is highly
complex. Cf, The Unity of the BibU, pp. 90 IF.
Revelation and Its Media 47
sacrifices and they were no longer needed. Jewish Christians
continued to sacrifice as Jews, but Gentile Christians were not
brought into relation with the sacrifices of the Jerusalem
Temple. For the Church sacrifice was superseded in the sacri-
fice which fulfilled the promise of the Old Testament , and the
sacrifices of the law were no longer necessary. For the Jew also
the sacrifices of the law soon ceased because the Temple itself
was destroyed and it was no longer possible to offer them. For
the Church the supersession of sacrifice was based on the
authority of a new revelation which came with the same marks
of divine origin as the old revelation, and which fulfilled the
promise of the old revelation itself. The faith of the Church that
no other sacrifice was needed has been for nearly nineteen
centuries shared by Judaism, but only because the cruel hand
of circumstance denied Jews the possibility of sacrifice on the
one spot allowed by the law. Here, once more, a faith which
was born in men who believed they were acting under divine
guidance has been confirmed by a subsequent event, which
their faith had no part in bringing about, and we have some-
thing of the same pattern of revelation that we have found in
these other examples.
God has revealed himself in many ways, and in the thought
of the Old Testament that variety is reflected. If we leave out
of account divination, which figures but little and decreasingly
there, we are left with ways whereby God still speaks to men.
His voice is still heard in Nature and in history, in individual
experience and in the personality of men and women who are
attuned to his spirit. Through each of these separately his voice
may be heard, and much of the message of the Old Testament
was mediated through prophetic personality. Of greater signi-
ficance than any of these separately, however, is that com-
bination of factors dovetailing into one another, wherein the
most distinctive medium of revelation in biblical thought and
experience is to be found.
II
THE NATURE OF GOD
THE thought of the Old Testament is centred in God. 1 Yet
there is nowhere any effort to prove that God exists. For thex
God of the Old Testament is the God of experience and not of J
speculation. It was not because some postulate of thought led
men to think of a first cause that they turned to the thought qf
God. They no more questioned his being than they questioned^
the reality of the world around them and of themselves. The/
philosopher may raise doubts about the reality of all things, but
the plain man is content to base his belief in the reality of the
world on his experience, however illusory the philosopher may
tell Mm it is. So the Hebrew was content to base his belief in
- the existence of God on what seemed to him to be the experience
of God granted to himself or to his people, and especially on the
experience of God given to the nation in the great moments of
> its history. At some of those moments we looked in the previous
lecture, and they provided impressive reasons for believing in
God.
It is true that from time immemorial the ancestors of the
Israelites, like most other peoples in the world, had taken the
existence of some god or gods for granted. But the faith of the
Old Testament is not based on such a thought. It is based
the belief that God had played a part in Israel's history,
had chosen her for himself, and that he had declared his will
her. He was ajjflgjto^^ than of thougt
When Amos felt the impulse to prophesy, he found it as in-
1 On the subject of this lecture cf. W. Eichrodt, Theologie des Allen Testaments, i,
3rd ed,, 1948, pp. 81 ff.; L. Koehler, Theologie des Alten Testaments, 3rd ed., 1953,
pp. 2 ff.; P. Heinisch, Theology of the Old Testament, E. Tr. by W. Heidt, 1950,
pp. 48 ff.; M. Burrows, An Outline of Biblical Theology, 1946, pp. 54 ff.; Th.C.
Vriezen, Hoofdlijnen der Theologie van het Oude Testament, 2nd ed., 1954, pp. 159 ff.;
O. J. Baab, The Theology of the Old Testament, 1949, pp. 23 ff.; O. Procksch,
Theologie des Alien Testaments, 1950, pp. 420 E; P. van Imschoot, Thfologie de
rAncien Testament, i, Dieu, 1954.
48
The Nature of God 49
escapable as the catch at the heart on hearing the roar of the
lion in the open country. 'When the lion roars, who wM not
fear? When the Lord Yahwefa speaks, who can but prophesy?* 1
No man who hears the roar of the lion near him will turn to
philosophy to ask whether there is any such objective reality as
the Hon; and no man who has had experience of God is con-
cerned to ask whether the philosopher will allow Mm to believe
in God. Where we find atheism in the Old Testament^ it is
rather a practical atheism than a theoretical atheism. 'The
wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance, saith, He will
not require it. All his thoughts are. There is no God'. 2 This is
not a speculative denial of the existence of God, but the
thought that God is not interested in men and can be left out
of account. A few verses below in the same psalm the wicked
says in his heart 'God has forgotten; he hides his face, he will
1 Amos 3.8,
2 Ps. 10.4. The rendering here substantially follows R.V. There is, however, an
extraordinary variety of interpretation of this verse in modern translations and
commentaries. R.S.V. has *In the pride of his countenance he does not seek him;
all his thoughts are, "There is no God".* This is in substantial agreement with
A.V., and a similar view is taken by W. O. E. Oesterley (The Psalms, i, 1939,
p. 143), save that he adds here two words from the previous verse and renders:
'The wicked contemneth, in the pride of his countenance, Yahweh, seeketh
(him) not.' Some editors take the words rendered 'in the pride of his countenance*
to refer to God, and so render 'According to the height of his anger he will not
require*; so G. R. Berry, The Book of Psalms, 1934, p. 36, following B. Duhm,
Die Psalmen (K.H.C.), 1899, p 31 (cf. H. P&rennes, Les Psaumes, 1922, p. 20,
G. Mercier, in La Bible du Centenaire, iii, 1947, p. 9, and E. Podechard, Le Psautier:
Traduction . . . et explication . . ., i, 1949, p. 48). This view agrees with R.V. in
finding the thought to be that God will not punish the wrongdoer, rather than
that the latter will not seek God. W. E. Barnes, Psalms (West, G.), i, 1931, p. 45,
renders: 'The wicked in his angry pride careth not*; similarly J. Gales, Le Lime
des Psaumes, i, 1936, p. 153 (in arrogantia sua non curat de eo)* In substantial agree-
ment with R.V. are F. Baethgen, Die Psalmen (H.K.), 1897, p. 26, A. B. Ehrlich,
Die Psalmen, 1905, p. 20, G. A. Briggs, Psalms (I.C.C.), i, 1907, p. 77, H. Gunkel,
Die Psalmen (H.K.), 1926, p. 31, F. .Zoreli, Psalterium ex hebraeo latinum, and ed.,
1939, p. 22, C. Lattey, The Psalter in the Westminster Version, 1945, p. 15, F. M. Th.
Bohl, De Psalmen (T.U.), i, 194$, P* 5 B - Bonkamp, Die Psalmen, 1949, p. 76,
E. A. Leslie, The Psalms, 1949, p. 221, E. Pannier and H. Renard, Les Psaumes
(Pirot-Clamer, La Sainte Bible), 1950, p. 92, and R. Tournay and R. Schwab,
Les Psaumes (Jerusalem Bible), 1950, p. 90; cf. also H. Schmidt, Die Psalmen
(H.A.T.), 1934? P- J 5- 1* i s curious to find R.S.V. rejecting the interpretation of
R.V,, while the new Biblical Institute Latin translation turns from the Vulgate
Exacerbavit Dominum peccator; secundum multitudinem viae suae non quaeret, to agree
closely with R.V. in its rendering Ait impius in superbia mentis: 'Non vindicabit; non
est Deus* : haec est omnis cogitatio eius (Liber Psalmorum cum Cantids Bremani Romani t
2nd ed., 1945, p. 14). A. F. Kirkpatrick, Psalm (Camb. B.), 1906 ed., p. 52,
observes that decisive for the understanding of 'he will not seek* of God's visitation
of man*s wickedness is verse 13, which R.S.V. renders: 'Why does the wicked
renounce God, and say in his heart, "Thou wilt not call to account"?*, where
the same verb is used. Similarly Gunkel, op. tit., p. 38.
50 The Faith of Israel
not notice.* 1 It is an atheism born in the will and not in the
mind. 2 Hence the answer of the Old Testament writers is not
to offer reasons for belief in God, but to rebuke the wicked will
and to invoke punishment rather than instruction. To them the
proof of God's existence was not in man's reasoning but in
God's own activity.
The fact of God is less important than the character he is
perceived to have. 3 The belief in the existence of God is
common to many religions, however that belief may have been
reached. Where they differ is in their conception of the nature
and character of God. In Israel, as we
ibundest elements
thought about
developed in the teaching of the
of God,
before the rise of the eighth and
seventh century prophets in one of those combinations of per-
sonal and impersonal factors at which we looked in the previous
lecture, and to which we shall have to return.
First, however, we may observe that a variety of terms for
God may be found in the Old Testament. In its opening words
we read c ln the beginning God created'. 4 Here the term used
for God is 'EUtAm, a word which is of plural form, and which is
sometimes used of foreign deities and translated gods. 5 In the
great majority of its occurrences, however, it is rendered God,
and refers to the Israelite deity. Of itself, therefore, its use
neither demands nor excludes a monotheistic view. It is prob-
able that the term took its rise in a polytheistic milieu, but in the
most ancient texts of the Bible it is already used of a single God,
1 Ps. io.ii.
1 J. Bonsirvcn (Le Jvdaisme palestinien au temps de Jtsus-Christ, i, 1934, p. 114) cites
some passages in I Enoch (38.2, 41.2, 45.2, 46.7, 63.7, 48.10) which refer to
those 'who deny the name the Lord of Spirits*. B. Gartner (The Areopagus
Speech and Natural Religion, 1955, p. 104 n.) observes against Bonsirven that these
were not atheists, as is shown clearly by I Enoch xlvi. 7, but 'men who show their
despite of the One God by unrighteous works and worship of other gods'. There
is here nothing which goes beyond what we find in the Old Testament. In fair-
ness to Bonsirven it should be added that he does not affirm that these passages
condemn speculative atheism, but contents himself by posing the question
whether they do.
9 Cf. G. R. Berry, 'The Old Testament Teaching concerning God', A.J.Th., v,
1901, pp. 254 ff.; also J. Lindblom, in Werden tmd Wesen des Alien Testaments
~ ~ A.W., No. <----
4 |
LZ.A.W., No. 66), ed. by J. Hempel, 1936, pp. 128 ff.
1.1.
* Gf. Ex. 18.11, 20.3, 1 Sam. 4.8, Ps, 86.8, and frequently.
The Nature of God 5 1
and is construed with a singular verb. This does not, of course,
prove that he is thought of as the only existing deity, and in-
deed there can be little doubt that in historical times many in
Israel used this term of their God without any idea of denying
the reality of other gods. To this we must return when we
consider the rise of monotheism. For the moment it must
suffice to note that the use of the plural word *El6Mm does not
of itself imply the recognition of more than one god wherever
it is found, or rule out such a recognition. A singular form,
'Eloah, is found frequently in the book of Job 1 and occasionally
outside. 2
Amongst many other terms for God found in the Bible we
may note 9 l, Shaddai> and 'ElySn, the last two sometimes found
in combination with the first. In most of our texts there can be
no doubt that all of these terms are used with reference to the
God of Israel. It is certain, however, that there was a stage
when they were thought of as separate and distinct deities. 8
Moreover, incorporated in proper names are elements con-
sisting of the names of other gods who are known to us from
the texts which have come down from Israel's neighbours. So
far as we have any knowledge of these neighbours, from Egypt
to Babylonia, they were polytheistic, with the exception of the
Pharaoh Ikhnaton of Egypt, who seems to have imposed, for a
short time, a form of monotheism on an unwilling people. 4 Of
1 It stands forty-two times in the book of Job.
* E.g., in Isa. 44.8, Hab. 3.3, Ps. 50.22, 139.19*
3 O. Eissfejdt, %.D.M.G., bcxxviii, 1934, p. 179, says: *Die yom A.T. gebrauchten
Appellativa fur "Gott" El und Elim, Eloah and Elohim sowie die in ihm
erwahnten Gotternamen Baal und Aschera-Astarte, Dagon und Milkom und
viele andere kommen in den Jahrhunderte alteren Ras Shamra-Texten vor, und
viele der hier genannten Gotter werden auch ihrem Wesen nach genauer charak-
terisiert.* Gf. E. Dhorme, La Religion des Hibreux nomades, 1937, pp. 333 ff.; also
H. S. Nyberg, A.R.W., xxxv, 1938, pp. 329 ff.
4 S. A. B. Mercer, J.S.O.R., x, 1926, pp. 14 ff., denies that Ikhnaton was a mono-
theist, and L. A. White, J.A.O.S., Ixviii, 1948, pp. 91 ff., attributes to him little
originality. Others recognize a genuine monotheistic character in his religion.
So W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, 2nd ed., 1946, p. 167. Indeed
Albright thinks this was the source of Mosaic monotheism (ibid., p. 206). This
seems to me highly improbable, even if I could agree in using the term 'mono-
theism* of Moses without qualification. A Lods (R.H.P.R., xiv, 1934, pp. 173 ff.),
while allowing that thought in the wider ancient East may have prepared the
ground for the prophetic movement in Israel, denies that it can explain the
monotheism which was attained in Israel. Gf. also W. W. von Baudissin *Zur
Geschichte des Monotheismus bei semitischen Vdlkern*, in Z).Z,.., xxxv, 1914,
cols. 5 ff., where such apparent monotheism as was expressed in non-Israelite
texts is described in terms of the universal character attributed to individual
gods, rather than a general monotheism (col. 8).
52 The Faith of Israel
the polytheism of the Canaanite neighbours of Israel we have
ample witness since the Ras Shamra texts became known. It is
not, therefore, surprising to find remnants of polytheism in the
speech of Israel, though here we observe that syncretism has
been at work to equate the once separate deities with Israel's
God. Thus, in the familiar passage in Ex. 6.2, we read 'I am
Yahweh: and I appeared unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as
El Shaddai 9 , where we have a clear case of such syncretism.
Here the God of the patriarchs is identified with the God in
whose name Moses came, though they bear different names. In
a similar way missionaries in China identified the God of the
Bible, Yahweh, with the ancient Chinese deity, Shang Ti, and
used Shang Ti to render 'El6him 9 wherever it occurs with the
meaning God in the Old Testament. In Christian circles Yahweh
has gathered Shang Ti into himself, and has filled with a new
content the old name. In Israel the name Shaddai fell largely
out of use, and was replaced by the name of Moses' God.
Where it remained, it was generally in poetry; and the same is
true of *Elj>6n. We never find any opposition between the God
of Moses and the God of the patriarchs, or any undercurrent of
feeling that the identification was not complete.
One example of syncretism finds much resistance, however.
The Canaanites used the term Ba'al, or Lord, for their gods, and
in the post-Settlement period Israelites worshipped at Canaan-
ite shrines according to Canaanite rites, and used this term
when they would have affirmed that they were worshipping the
God of Israel. There was always an undercurrent of feeling,
however, that Israel's God was not Batal y and in times of
national tension this found open expression. One of Gideon's
first acts was to break down the local Bctal altar. 1 Yet through
long periods this syncretism continued with little opposition,
and in the Israelite religion that ultimately emerged not a
little of the ritual that was of Canaanite origin appears to have
found a place. 2 Yet the term Ba'al was repudiated, and Hosea
sets God and Bctal in sharp opposition to one another. This
* Cf. H. F. Hahn, Old Testament in Modern Mesearch, 1954, p. 1 1 1 : "The Ras Shamra
texts strongly suggested some connexion between the sacrificial ritual of the
Hebrews and that of the Ganaanites'; p. 112: "The similarity of the Ugaritic
rituab to several aspects of the cultus described in the Priestly Code was the most
striking fact discovered in the Ras Shamra texts 1 .
The Mature of God 53
seems odd, since the meaning of the term is not exceptionable,
and another term ^Adhonai^ of comparable meaning and also
associated with Canaanite religion, familiar to us in its Greek
form Adonis, not only continued to be used unchallenged, but
was actually substituted for the proper name of Israel's God in
the reading of the Old Testament/ giving rise to the rendering
Kyrios in the Greek, Dominus in the Latin, and LORD in the
English versions.
The proper name of Israel's God is familiar to us in the
hybrid form Jehovah* This is a mediaeval coinage, 2 and it con-
sists of the consonants of the Hebrew name for God, but vowel
sounds similar to those of *Adhonai. How the name was really
pronounced before its pronunciation was avoided we can never
know with certainty. It is commonly thought that it was pro-
S&3ABg<^^ i n modern
works of scholarship. 3 If it is used, it must be used with reserve,
and with recognition of the fact that God has not thought it
important that his name should be preserved. None can know
with assurance more than the consonants of the name of the
God in whose name Moses went into Egypt to lead the Israelites
out.
1 L. Finkelstein, H.T.R., xxxv, 1942, p. 296, says that the substitution was made in
the third century B.C.
2 Its origin is often attributed to Petrus Galatinus in 1518, but G. F. Moore has
shown that the form is older. For his researches into the antiquity of this form,
and the various other forms, such as Jahvoh, Jova, Johovah, Johavah, etc.,
cf.AJ.7%.,xii, i9o8,pp.34ff.,AJ.L.,xxv, 1 908-9, pp. 312 ff.,xxyiii, 1911-12,
pp. 56 ff. On the date of Petrus Galatinus, De arcanis catholicae veritatis t commonly
given as 1520 (so B.D.B., 1907, p. 218 a), and occasionally as 1516 (so F. Prat,
in D.Bib. 9 iii, 1903, col. 1224), cf "- A.J.Th. y loc. cit., p. 34, and A.J.S.L*, xxviii,
pp. 58 f. Gf. also P.R.E., 3rd ed., ix, 1901, p. 8 1 1, for evidence of the use of the
form 'Jehovah' by Wessel in the fifteenth century. F. Prat (loc. cit,, col. 1225)
attributes it to Raymond Martin, whose Pugiojidei was written c. 1270, and pub-
lished in 1651. Moore (A.J.Th., loc. cit.) holds that the form is not to be attri-
buted to Martin, but to the copyists, but since one MS. is dated 1381, the form
was certainly older than Galatinus, and was probably common in the fourteenth
century. B. Smalley (The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, and ed., 1952,
p. 350) states that the form Jehovah was already known to Christians in the late
thirteenth century.
8 On the original pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton there is a considerable
literature, and many views have been propounded. It will suffice here to refer
to O. Eissfeldt, &A.W., liii (N.F. xii), 1935, pp. 59 C, A. L. Williams, ibid., liv
(N.F. xiii), 1939, pp. 262 ff. (maintaining that the pronunciation was *Jah6h J ),
J. A. Montgomery, J.B.L., Ixiii, 1944, pp. 161 IF. (holding that it was pronounced
'YS-mV), and D. D. Luckenbill, A.J.S.L., ad, 1923-4, pp. 247 ff. (arguing for
'Jah6'), and A. Murtonen, A Philosophical and Literary Treatise on the Old Testament
Divine Names Ml, Eloah, Elohim and Tahweh, 1952, pp. 54 ff. J. Obermann ( JJU.,
Ixviii, 1949, pp. 301 ff.) argues that Yahweh was not originally a proper name,
but a nomen agentis, meaning 'Sustainer, Maintainer, Establisher'.
54 The Faith of Israel
It has been claimed that this name was known at Ras
Shamra, where it stood in the form Tw the son qfEL 1 This view
is not unchallenged, and it is most improbable that we have
here the name of Israel's God. 2 In any case this God plays no
prominent part in Ras Shamra mythology, and it could
scarcely have been under the influence of this religion that the
Israelites made Yahweh the sole God whose worship was held
to be legitimate for them. More commonly it is held, on
evidence found in the Old Testament itself, that Yahweh was
worshipped by the Kenites before he was worshipped by Israel. 8
The evidence for this is not irresistible, and many scholars
dispute it, 4 but it seems on the whole probable. There is evidence
to connect the father-in-law of Moses with the Kenites, 5 and it
is stated that he was a priest. 8 If he was, as this theory believes,
a priest of Yahweh, Moses 5 contact with the worship of Yahweh
is explained. This does not mean that the religion of Israel is
to be equated with the religion of the Kenites, and treated as a
development from it. What is important is not so much the
name of the deity as the character of the religion that was
associated with it, and the character of the religion of Yahwism
established by Moses was different from any Kenite Yahwism.
Just as Christianity in China has taken over the name Shang Ti,
but filled it with a meaning it never had in China before the
Gospel was taken there, so the name Yahweh, if it were a
1 R. Dussaud, R.H.R., cv, 1932, p. 247, C.R.A.I., 1940, pp. 364 ff., and Les Decou
vertes de Ras Shamra et VAncien Testament, 2nd ed., 1941, pp. 171 f.; H. Bauer,
Z.A*W t , li (N.F. x), 1933, pp. 92 ff.; O. Eissfeldt, Ras Schamra imd Sanchwijathon
1939, pp. 17 f.; A. Vincent, La Religion des Jud&o-Aramims d' Elephantine, 1937,
pp. 27 f.; Ch. Virolleaud, La D Jesse 'Anat, 1938, p. 98; A. Murtonen, op. cit.,
* Cf. R. de Vaux, R.B., xlvi, 1937, pp. 352 f.; A. Bea, Biblica, xx, 1939, pp. 440 f.;
W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, 2nd ed., pp. 197, 328, G.H.
Gordon, Ugaritic Grammar, 1940, p. 100; W. Baumgartner, 7Ti.R., N.F. xiii,
1941, pp. 159 f.; R. de Langhe, Un Dieu Tahweh a Ras Shamra? 1942; and J. Gray,
JJV.&&, xii, 1953, PP. 278 ff.
8 Cf. B. Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i, 1887, pp. 130 f.; K. Budde, Religion of
Israel to the Exile, 1899, Chapter i; W. Vischer, Jahwe der Gott Kains, 1929; J.
Morgenstern, H.U.C.A., xv, 1940, pp. 127 ff.; A. J. Wensinck, Semietische Studien,
1941, pp. 23 ff. In my From Joseph to Joshua, 1950, pp. 149 ff., this view is presented
as probable.
4 Cf. E. Konig, Geschichte der alttestamentlichen Religion, 1912, pp. 162 ff.; W. J.
Phythian-Adams, The Call of Israel, 1934, pp. 72 ff.; T. J. Meek, Hebrew Origins,
1936, pp. 86 ff. (2nd ed., 1950, pp. gsff.) ; M. Buber, Moses, 1947, pp. 94 ff.; and
C.H.W. Brekelmans, O.T.S., x, 1954, PP- 21 5 ff-
5 He is called a Midianite in Ex. 3.1, 18.1, but a Kenite in Judg. 4.1 1. It is prob-
able that the Kenites were a Midianite clan.
Ex. 3.!.
The Nature of God 55
Kenite divine name, was filled with a new significance. This*
however, was not a significance which Moses or the Israelites
brought to it, but a significance which was given to it in the
texture of the revelation which is associated with Moses. If the
name of God was shared with the Kenites, the conception of
the character of God could hardly have been shared, since the
Israelite conception was born of her own experience of God in
the deliverance from Egypt. For this reason we have no need
to discuss the problem of the meaning of the name Yahweh.
This has been much discussed, and a variety of views advanced.
But etymology is not finally important here for Old Testament
theology, since not etymology but experience filled the term
with meaning.
While, therefore, various names were used for God, names
which originally denoted different deities, they were all used
for the one God of Israel, and from the time of Moses it was
recognized that Israel should have no other god. This does not
mean that no other gods were actually worshipped, for the
Bible itself tells us that men often worshipped other gods, and
they are condemned for this again and again. It does, however,
mean that one element of the distinctive religion of Israel,
which Moses established, was that IsraeFs God, Yahweh, was
the sole legitimate object of her worship. In so far as she wor-
shipped other gods, for whatever reason, she was disloyal to the
spirit of her own religion.
In having but one legitimate God there was nothing unique.
Many nations and tribes have had each their own god, to
whom they have given exclusive worship worship more ex-
clusive than Israel gave to Yahweh throughout long periods.
What was unique was the way Israel or at least those elements
of the nation that were led by Moses 1 came to worship
Yahweh. I&]K*L3^ Yahweh had chosen her to be his
people, and her pledge of loyalty to him was her response to
his election and deliverance of her from Egypt. This is funda-
mental for the understanding of the Old Testament, and here
are to be found the seeds of all the great distinctive principles
of its teaching. Through his experience at the Bush Moses went
1 It is a common view that not all the tribes were led out of Egypt by Moses. For
my view on this question, and a full discussion of some other views, cf. From
Joseph to Joshua.
56 The Faith of Israel
into Egypt In the name of Yahweh to lead the people out. He
was as sure as any of the prophets that he went with a divine
commission, and that this commission sprang out of the divine
compassion for Israel. fi l have indeed seen the suffering of my
people in Egypt, and have heard their cry because of their
taskmasters.' 1 Here Yahweh was choosing Israel and adopting
her to be his people. In accordance with this Hosea says C I am
Yahweh thy God from the land of Egypt'; 2 and Ezekiel Thus
saith the Lord Yahweh: on the day when I chose Israel, and
lifted up my hand 8 unto the seed of the house of Jacob, and made
myself known to them in the land of Egypt, when I lifted up
my hand unto them, saying, I am Yahweh your God.' 4 While
there are passages which represent the election of Israel as
going back earlier than the time of Moses, 5 this is less funda-
mental to the thought of the Old Testament than the election
through Moses. 6 In any case it was through the work of Moses
that God's choice of Israel was renewed and confirmed, 7 and
through the deliverance of the Exodus that his claim upon her
was established. Of some aspects of that deliverance I have
spoken in the previous lecture. It was not achieved by human
valour, but by the activity of God, and all that was asked of
them was faith to believe in the deliverance promised by Moses
in the name of God.
For the study of the faith of Israel it does not matter whether
this story is reliable or not, since Israel believed it, and on it
erected her faith that God was active in history and in her
experience. I have already given my reasons for believing that
in its broad outlines this story is true, and that while many of
the details may have been enhanced in the tradition, beneath
1 Ex. 3.7. * Hos. 12.10.
8 This is the gesture signifying an oath; cf. Gen. 14.22.
* Ezek. 20.5. 6 Cf. e.g., Isa. 41.7 f.; Ps. 105.43.
' Cf. K. Galling, Die Erwahlungstraditionen Israels, 1928, where a careful study of
these traditions is offered. Gf. also E. Jacob, La Tradition historique en Israel, 1946,
p. 148: *Je>mie n'ignore pas les traditions patriarchies, mais n ne les considere
pas comme faisant partie de 1'histoire du salut; Fhistoire d'Israel commence a
Moise', and p. 152: *L* election ne remonte pas a l'e*poque patriarcale, mais a la
sortie d'Egypte'; similarly A. G. Hebert, The Throne of David, 1941, p. 29 n.;
C. R. North, The Old Testament Interpretation of History, 1946, p. 50. On the
measure of validity in both traditions cf. The Biblical Doctrine of Election, pp. 19 ff.
7 Cf. G. G. Montefiore, The Old Testament and After, 1923, p. 76; *It is very generally
now believed either that Yahweh only became Israel's God in the Mosaic age,
and then by an act of deliberate choice, or that, even if Yahweh was known in
Israel before Moses, he was, as it were, chosen and accepted afresh after the
escape from Egypt.'
The Nature of 'God 57
them lies a substance which is as secure as anything in ancient
history. Israel found various elements in the character of God
revealed here, and if the story is in substance reliable, then those
elements are true not for Israel alone. It is therefore not to be
surprised at that here in the story of the Exodus and its outcome
we have the seeds of the teaching about God which char-
acterizes both Testaments, and which is still valid for the
modern world. j ^hv* *
To Israel God was persona! 2 jjn<^^
iteeffnTw^TTIelvS^aSve in history, and not a mere spectator '
of its course. He controlled the forces of Nature, and could
make himself known through prophetic personality. The Old
Testament sometimes calls Moses a prophet. 1 He is not seldom
denied any place in a study of the Old Testament prophets. 2
For this denial there is no justification. 3 He was much more
than a prophet, indeed, but he was also as truly a prophet as
any of the great figures of the eighth and seventh centuries. He
was admitted to the counsel of God, and became the mouth-
piece of God to men, as much as they; and indeed, through
him there came a more fundamental revelation of the will of
God than through any other. His personality was vital to the
whole experience of Israel in the Exodus. It was not that they
experienced deliverance, and then somehow believed that God
had delivered them, and afterwards through meditation on that
deliverance evolved a theology. The deliverance was first
promised before it was achieved, and then interpreted by the
man who had been vindicated in the deliverance. It was
history announced in advance in the name of God, and the
prophet who then interpreted it in retrospect had not com-
pleted his prophetic work in the prior announcement. He con-
tinued that work by both interpreting the history and
directing the response to the deliverance.
Many modern minds are disturbed by the miraculous
element in the story of the deliverance from Egypt and else-
where in the Old Testament. On the other hand it is sometimes
alleged that critical scholarship is based on the denial of the
1 Num. 12.6 ff.; Deut. 18.15, 34.10; Hos. 12,13 (Heb. 14).
P. Volz, in his Prophetengestalten des Alien Testaments, 1938, devotes a chapter to
Moses but this is uncommon in modern studies of Old Testament prophecy.
3 Gf. K. Marti, The Religion of the Old Testament, E.Tr. by G. A. Bienemann, 1914,
p. 63 f. : *He is only rightly understood when he is conceived as a prophet.'
58 The Faith of Israel
possibility of miracle. 1 Let me say with clarity and candour that
I am a critical scholar and that I neither begin nor end with
any such denial. If miracle be defined as divine activity within
the world, 2 a belief in its possibility would seem to be funda-
mental to a belief in God. He cannot be excluded from the
world he has made, or reduced to the position of a spectator of
the interplay offerees which he had once set in motion. In the
faith of Israel he was too real and personal to be reduced to
impotence in his own world, or regarded as one who idly
watched while men worked out their own destiny, and this
faith is integral to any worth-while faith in God. Many of the
miracles recorded in the Old Testament are examples of divine
activity through natural events, such as the deliverance from
Egypt through wind and wave, 3 from Sisera through storm, 4
or from Sennacherib through plague. 5 Others are examples of
divine activity through events which were contrary to the
order of Nature, such as the passage through walk of water at
the Red Sea/ the standing still of the sun in the time of Joshua, 7
the recovery of an axe-head by Elisha by the device of throwing
wood into the water, 8 or the delivery of the three youths from
Nebuchadnezzar's fire. 9 In some cases these stories are dramatic
representations of simpler facts, as may be seen by a study of
the context in which they are set; or wonder tales that grew
round the name of a hero; or parabolic stories that were made
the vehicle of a message. 10 The miracle stories can neither be
uncritically accepted as historical, nor uncritically rejected as
fancy. Each example must be examined for itself, in the light
of the character of the narrative in which it stands and the pur-
pose for which it appears to have been written. But that there
is a truly miraculous element in the story I am fully persuaded.
1 Cf. The New Bible Handbook, cd. by G. T. Manley, and ed., 1949, pp. 40 ff., where
it is argued that modern critical scholarship is based on, and permeated by, un-
belief in the possibility of miracle.
* Such divine activity is never a mere demonstration of power for its own sake, but
always to serve the purpose of God. A. Richardson (A Theological Word Book of
the Bible, 1952, p. 152) defines miracle as *an event which happens in a manner
contrary to the regularly observed processes of nature*. This is too narrow a
definition. It confines itself to the unusual form of the phenomenon, and relates
it neither to God nor to the purpose of God, and it ignores the fact that some of
the biblical 'miracles', such as the deliverance in the battle of Taanach, involved
nothing which was contrary to the ordinary processes of nature.
8 Ex. 14.21. * Judg. 5.21 f. * II ICings 19.35. * Ex. 14.22.
7 Josh. 10.13. 8 II Kings 6.6. Dan. 3.25 ff.
10 Cf. The Relevance of the Bible, pp. 103 ff.
The Nature of God 59
We have not merely the working out of human impulses and the
chance interplay of natural forces. We have the activity of God
in inspiration and revelation, and the evidence of his presence
in Nature and history.
In tales of wonder there Is nothing distinctive of Israel's
religion. Similar tales are widely current elsewhere, and,
indeed, on a more liberal scale. In stories of the activity of gods
in human affairs, there is nothing in itself unique. Many
peoples have believed their gods took part in the affairs of men,
usually to defend the interests of their worshippers, but some-
times to punish them for their offences. What is distinctive of
Israel's faith is the belief that God revealed his character in Ms
activity, and that thefe^w^T^Baorp^'purpose governing it.
This is not H'lsff^^Mi^K^r6" al was some moral law to which-
God himself was subject, but that God was conceived of as a
moral being, and that in the revelation of himself the moral
law was unfolded. Most religions prescribe some moral code for
men. But the gods are often thought of as exempt from that
code. In the popular stories of the Greek and Roman gods, the
gods are represented as behaving often in ways that would be
immediately condemned in men. In Israel it was perceived in
germ in the beginning, and with increasing clearness as time
passed, that what God is they who worship him should become.
Thus the religion of Israel is ethical in its essence, and not
merely in its demands.
This is clear from the time of its foundation through Moses.
After he had led the people out of Egypt by a deliverance to
which their prowess had contributed nothing, they pledged
themselves to God by voluntary consecration, as their response
in gratitude for his saving act. Unlike fear, sorrow, and joy,
which have no necessarily ethical quality, gratitude is a funda-
mentally ethical emotion, and it is not surprising that a religion
so founded should have had an ethical quality. The ethical
character of Old Testament religion is commonly associated
with the prophets of the eighth and seventh centuries. Those
prophets emphasized and developed the ethical demands of
religion, indeed, but the beginnings of ethical religion in Israel
did not have to wait till the eighth century. Israel did not at
Sinai realize all the implications of her faith, and often long
subsequently lived on a low ethical plane, as the prophets so
60 The Faith of Israel
clearly and insistently declared. But the seeds of ethical religion
were planted at Sinai, and were later watered by prophetic
teaching. Nathan made it plain to David that there were rights
of man which a king could not violate with impunity, 1 and
Elijah renewed this declaration to Ahab. 2 But neither prophet
stood merely as the champion of human rights. They stood as
champions of the will of God; for man's ultimate rights were
based on the will of God. Hence all sin of man against man was
conceived of as primarily sin against God. And when the great
prophets of the eighth and seventh centuries declaimed against
the social injustice of their age, their message was born of their
perception of the character of God. It was because they realized
that God was a God of justice and righteousness that they de-
manded justice and righteousness from men. Here was some-
thing deeper than an abstract theology, a mere formulation of
belief about God. It was a vital theology. It was a demand that
men should reflect the character that God was perceived to
have. And that character was the character that he revealed in
his acts.
That Israel thought of God as creator, and as all-powerful,
all-knowing, and present everywhere does not need to be
elaborated here. This is not because it is not true or important,
but because it is of less significance than the revelation of his
character. His creatorship is declared on the first page of the
Bible, and his knowledge of the inmost thoughts of men is de-
clared again and again. The account of creation given in the
first chapter of the Bible is often contrasted with the story of
creation and of the Garden of Eden that follows. The naivete
of the anthropomorphism of the second story and of associated
stories is emphasized, and it is pointed out that in the story of
the Tower of Babel, God is represented as having to come down
to see what is going on, 3 and in the Garden of Eden he takes a
walk in the cool of the day. 4 Despite the cruder anthropomor-
phism we find in these passages, it should not be overlooked
that in the story of the Garden of Eden we can hardly presume
that when God asks Adam what he has been doing, 5 he is
ignorant of the answer until Adam confesses. In the following
chapter Cain avoids confessing his sin, but finds that God
1 II Sam. 12.7 ff. * I Kings 21.10. 8 Gen. 11.5.
4 Gea. 3.8. * Gen. 3.11.
The Nature of God 61
already knows. 1 His power to control the forces of Nature and
the kingdoms of men is assumed everywhere. He uses wind, and
storm, and plague to effect his purpose ; he humiliates Pharaoh
and employs the proud might of Assyria to do his will. He is
also present everywhere, present with Joseph in Egypt, with
Moses in the wilderness, with Jonah at sea. There is no place
from which he is excluded. All of this is taken for granted
everywhere in the Bible, and there is no need to cite texts to
establish it.
Nor need we linger over some other qualities of God, which
figure constantly in the thought of the Old Testament. The
glory of God is frequently mentioned, 2 and he is conceived of in
terms of the highest exaltation as one before whom men are
constrained to bow in reverence and adoration. He is far above
men, clothed in majesty, and nowhere does he act without
dignity or fail to inspire awe. His wisdom, too, is always
manifest. His means are ever appropriate to his ends. He uses
the forces of Nature to serve his purposes without making them ,
any the less natural, and equally he uses the thoughts and
actions of men without making them the less human. When he
makes the Assyrian the rod of Hs anger, 8 the Assyrian is all
unconscious of the fact, 4 and is merely following the evil bent
of his heart. He bears full responsibility for his action, even
though that action, despite its evil character, is integrated into
the purpose of God. In his patience and long-suffering God uses
the conflicting desires and purposes of men to achieve his will,
without destroying human freedom or converting man into a
mere puppet in his hands. The inscrutability of the divine
wisdom is often brought out, and notably in the book of Job,
where Job is rebuked for passing judgement on God on the
basis of his ignorance. 5 Similarly in the great Wisdom chapter in
the book of Job, 6 which seems to be independent of the rest of
the book, the only home of wisdom is declared to be in God.
Man by his searching cannot find it, until God in his grace
reveals it. 7
Leaving aside these qualities of God, important as they are
1 Gen. 4.9 f.
2 For a study of the concept of the glory of God in the Old Testament cf. B. Stein,
Der Begriff K* bod Jahweh vnd seine BedeutungfUr die alttestameniLiche GotUserkenntnis,
1939. and G. von Rad, in T7i.W.B., ii, 1935, PP- 2 4<> ff -
8 Isa. 10.5. * Isa. 10.7. 8 Job 38 f. Job 28. 7 Job 28.23, 27 f.
62 The Faith of Israel
for any foil understanding of biblical theology, we turn to Ms
moral attributes. For it is in these that the distinctive elements
of the faith of Israel He.
In Egypt God had revealed himself as a compassionate and a
saving God. He had pity on the sufferings of Israel and he
saved her by the exercise of his power. It is sometimes supposed
that it was to Hosea that Israel owed the thought of God as
gracious and merciful. Yet clearly it went back far behind
Hosea to the event of the Exodus, and in a passage which is
held by many critical scholars to antedate the time of Hosea we
read 'Yahweh, Yahweh, a God compassionate and gracious, 1
slow to anger, and abundant in mercy 2 and truth.* 3 Hosea,
indeed, developed this thought of God, and with an intensity
born of his own tragic experience declared the constancy of
God's love, and pressed on men the demand of that love for an
answering love and loyalty. 4 Here again the demands of God
1 The Hebrew word here is kannun, the adjective from fien, which is often rendered
'grace*, or *favour*. On the relations between this word and fresedh cf. W. F.
Lofthouse, Z.A.W., li (N.F. x), pp. 29 ff.; also P. Bonnetain, in S.D.B., iii, 1938,
cols. 727 ff. W. L. Reed (J.B.JL, Ixxiii, 1954, pp. 36 ff.) argues that fieri meant
inner good will, while fyesedh means the overt act which results from it. It is
difficult to think that this is adequate.
* This is the Hebrew word fresedh, which has no precise equivalent in English.
G. A. Smith (Jeremiah, 3rd ed., 1924, p. 104) says that 'troth* is the nearest
English equivalent, while N. H. Snaith (Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, 1944,
p. 95; cf. J. Bright, The Kingdom of God, 1953, p. 28 n.) defines it as 'covenant
love*, and A. R.Johnson (cf. J.B.L., btvi, 1947, p. xxx) proposes devotion*.
Cf. now A. R. Johnson, 'HESED and HASID', in Interpretations ad Vetus Testamentum
pertinentes (Mowinckel Festschrift = JV. T. T., Ivi, 1-2 Hefte), 1955, pp. 100-12.
None of these words is adequate. A. Lods (The Prophets and the Rise of Judaism,
E.Tr. by S. H, Hooke, 1937, p. 89) says: 'Hesed, a very comprehensive word,
which, for want of an adequate equivalent, we are obliged to translate, now by
piety, now by mercy, love or grace; it corresponds fairly closely to the Latin
pietas, meaning not only the feeling of a faithful believer towards God, or of a
son towards his father, but also the feeling of God or of a leader towards his
subordinates, and in a general way, the natural feeling which prompts a man,
apart from the constraint of law, to be kind and indulgent towards the members
of his family or tribe.' Gf. T. H. Robinson, in The Psalmists, ed. by D. G. Simpson,
1926, pp. 36 f., and A. Neher, L* Essence du Prophe'tisme, 1955, PP 2 ^4 ff * n the
present passage it is used of the divine initiative in grace. Gf. also below p. 70, n.i
8 Ex. 34,6. This verse is assigned to the J source of the Pentateuch by J. E.
Carpenter, The Composition of the Hexateuch, 1902, p. 517; G. Steuernagel,
EinUitung in das Alte Testament, 1912, p. 150; S. R. Driver, Exodus (Gamb. B.),
1918 ed., p. 367; A. H. McNeile, Exodus (West. G.), 2nd ed., 1917, p. 217;
Oesterley and Robinson, Introduction to the Books of the Old Testament, 1934, p. 37;
A. Weiser, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 2nd ed., 1949, p. 81. By some scholars,
however, it is attributed to a Redactor; so W. H. Bennett, Exodus (Cent. B.),
pp. 256 f., O. Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Sjmopse, 1922, pp. 54 ff., 158*, G. Beer, Exodus
(H.A.T.), 1939, p. 1 60, and C. A. Simpson, Early Traditions of Israel, 1948, p. 215.
4 Cf. F, Buck, Die Liebe Gottes beim Propheten Osee, 1953.
The Mature of G^d 63
spring out of Ms character* But this character was not first
revealed in the eighth century B.C. Already when Israel was
suffering in Egypt, he loved her and had pity on her, and Ms
love both expressed his own character and laid its constraint
upon Israel.
Yet if he was a saving God in the Exodus, he. was by no means
always represented as such. There were many occasions when
he delivered his people, but beside them we must remember
the occasions when the prophets predicted woe for them. In the
prophetic teaching this was never thought of as due to some
temporary whim of God, or to his anger at some ritual offence,
There are stories in the Old Testament which tell of God's
anger with the whole nation because some individual had
violated a tabu either in conscious disobedience, as in the story
of Achan, 1 or in ignorance, as in the account of the battle of
Michmash, when Jonathan nearly lost his life. 2 But these do
not stand in the prophetic teaching; and while they are not
without value, as will be seen below, they are not in themselves
stories distinctive of Israel's religion. They reflect ideas which
were common in. the world in which Israel lived. The great
prophets, however, unfolded God's moral purpose for the
world. When Israel did not reflect his character in her internal
life, but by the evils that were rampant revealed her sorry
state, then her way could not prosper. This was not simply
because God was offended with her. It was the expression of
his moral character and his love. For in the teaching of the
prophets the only foundation for man's well-being lies in
obedience to the will of God. If God were indifferent to the
lives of men he would not be a moral being; and if he were
indifferent to their well-being he would not be a God of love.
Hence the discipline of events was thought of as designed to
bring Israel back into the way of God's will, so that she might
reap blessing, and the disasters foretold by the prophets were
as much the expression of the character and will of God as the
deliverance from Egypt had been. Israel's election did not mean
that she was the pampered favourite of God. It brought her
high privilege; but it also laid heavy responsibility on her, and
was charged with constraint, which she could only disclaim to
her hurt.
1 Josh. 7.1. * Sam. 14.27, 37 ff.
64 The Faith of Israel
Nor could the disasters foretold by the prophets be thought
of as arbitrary and unrelated to the evils the prophets de-
nounced. The people that would not walk in the way of God's
will could not know true well-being. If it would not submit
itself to him in spirit, it could not know his guidance, and
therefore its way could not prosper. For the life of a people
issues from its spirit. It was therefore idle to expect that in
external affairs it would prosper when in internal affairs it was
plainly not subject to Ms guidance. The social evils which
marked the life of the nation were symptoms of its diseased
spirit, and until spiritual health was renewed in a return to
God and to obedience to his will, disease would continue to
afflict all its life. In the book of Deuteronomy this is clearly
taught, and it is declared that the disobedient nation will meet
disaster in war and innumerable other ills. 1 In the framework of
the book of Judges we find the same doctrine, and it is implicit
in much of the teaching of the prophets. That it is not the whole
truth, and that desert and fortune cannot be rigidly equated,
should be remembered. Yet broadly it is true that the way of
wisdom and well-being is the way of obedience to the will of
God. To this, however, we shall have to return. Here all that
concerns us is the recognition of God's moral character in the
discipline of his people, which is as much an expression of his
love for her as was his deliverance at the Red Sea.
It is manifest that the thought of God as saving did not rest
at the point where it began in the Exodus. There he saved
Israel from her bondage, and from the lash of the taskmaster.
But in the prophetic teaching he was seeking to save her from
herself. He desired her truest wqll-being, and therefore he de-
sired her to reflect his will. So by the discipline of events he
sought to open her eyes to her folly, that she might renounce her
way. Here again, therefore, we find in the revelation associated
with the Exodus the seeds of something that was deepened in
the prophetic teaching.
From this it is clear that the justice and the love of God are
not attributes to be set over against one another, between which
there was a tension. His discipline of Israel was not simply the
expression of God's justice, overcoming and setting aside his
love for the time being. It was as much the expression of his
1 Deut. 28.15 ff.
The of God 65
love as of his justice. When Amos announces the discipline
which God was about to send s he made it clear that it was the
expression of God's love. You only have I known 1 of all the
families of the earth; therefore will I visit upon you your
iniquities.' 2 Similarly, the wrath of God and Ms love are not
to be set over against one another. His wrath was the expression
of his love, no less than his justice was. For love is not soft
indulgence; nor is the wrath of God a display of temper. It is
his holy intolerance of that which is not merely antithetical to
his own character, but also hostile to man*s deepest interest.
His justice visits man's iniquity upon Mm y because that
iniquity is man's own worst foe. The words rendered nghtems-
ness and justice are often used forensically in Hebrew. Their use
in relation to God means that he is utterly blameless^ and that if
there were a court before which he could be arraigned 3 Ms acts
would stand the utmost scrutiny. 8 God's acts conform to the
principles wMch he lays down for men.
Nor are these all the moral attributes of God. His holiness is
often predicated. 4 This was at first thought of as a numinous
quality attacMng to God and to persons and things that were
separated from common use. In the Canaanite fertility cult
, a The meaning here is clearly 'loved* or 'chosen*. The mediaeval Jewish com-
mentator Rashi rendered by the former, and Kimfei by the latter. I. EngneU
(Israel and the Law (Symb. B. U.), vii, and ed., 1954, jp. 26) has the latter, Cf.
K. Cramer, Amos (B.W.A.N.T., iii, 15), 1930, pp. 55 For a discussion of this
verse cf. A. Neher, Amos, 1950, pp. 34 ff.
s Ainos 3.2.
8 Cf. G. Quell and G. Schrenk in Th.W.B., H, 1935, pp. 176 ff. (E.Tr. by J. R.
Coates, Righteousness, 1951); K. H. Fahlgren, $*da(a, nahestehenae and entgegen*
gesetzte Begriffe im Alien Testament, 1932; A. Descamps, 'Justice ct Justification*,
in SJDJt.y iv, 1949, cols. 1417 ff.; F. Notscher, Die Gerechtigkeit Gottes bet dm
vorexilischen Propheten (A. A., vi, i), 1915; R. Leiyestad, Guds straffende reUferdighet t
1946; A. H. van der Weijden, Die 'Gerechtigkeit' in den Psdmen, 1952; J. H. Ropes,
' "Righteousness" and "the Righteousness of God" in the Old Testament and in
St. Paul', J.B.., xxii, 1903, pp. an ff.; W. F. Lofthouse, 'The Righteousness of
Jahweh*, E.T., 1 (=50) 1938-9, pp. 341 ff.; N. H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the
Old Testament, 1944, pp. 51 ff.; H. Gazelles, 'A propos de quelques textes diffi-
ciles relatifs a la justice de Dieu dans TAncien Testament*, R.B., Iviii, 1951, pp.
169 ff., 189 ff.; J. A. Bollier, 'The Righteousness of God: a word study', Inter-
pretation, viii, 1954, pp. 404 ff. On the term mishpat cf. H. W. Hertzberg, %.A. W n
xl, 1922, pp. 256 ff., xli, 1923, pp. 1 6 ff., and J. van der Ploeg, O.T.5., ii, 1943,
pp. 144 ff. Cf. also Cramer, op. cit., pp. 146 ff. T. W. Nakarai ( The Shane Quarterly,
xiii, 1952, pp. 51 ff.) insists on tne necessity of keeping s dhafcah and mishpat
quite separate.
4 On the concept of holiness in the Old Testament cf. O. Procksch, in Th*W.B.,
i, 1932, 88 ff. ; J. Pedersen, Israel III-IV, 1940, pp. 264 ff. ; N. H. Snaith, op. cit.,
~ H. Ringgren, The Prophetical Conception of Holiness (U.U.A., 19 " v
66 The Faith of Israel
there were sacred prostitutes, to whom the term holy was
applied. Such a conception is not characteristic of the religion
of Israel, though there were many Israelites who rose no higher.
In the faith of Israel a moral content was given to the term.
This is associated especially with the teaching of Isaiah, who
is fond of calling God The Holy One of Israel 9 , though again
it was not without preparation before his time. In the story of
the call of MoseSj 1 the prophet feels a profound awe in the
presence of God, who is portrayed not alone in terms of power
and separateness from man, but in terms of goodness and
mercy, sending Moses on his gracious errand of deliverance
from oppression. There is a moral quality in the holiness of
God, as well as the numinous quality which communicated
itself to the very ground on which Moses stood. In the story of
the call of Isaiah, 2 the prophet trembles exceedingly in the
presence of the thrice holy God. Yet what makes him tremble
is not the consciousness of his humanity in the presence of divine
power, but the consciousness of his sin in the presence of moral
purity. His dread is due to the realization that sin could not
live in that presence. Either he must perish with his sin, or it
must perish that he might live. And when one touched his lips
with a live coal from the altar, it was this miracle of the renewal
of the springs of his moral nature that was achieved. The
holiness of God is thus seen to be the antithesis of all moral
stain, that quality in God which is not only a rebuke to all in
man which is contrary to His will, but in whose presence sin
- cannot live.
/ Again, the faithfulness, or truth, of God is often insisted on in
I the Old Testament. By this is not meant his loyalty to his
/ people or to his covenant, for which the term hesedh is commonly
V used though the meaning of that word is not exhausted in the
V term loyalty. Rather is it here meant, by the terms **munah and
\meth* that God is not arbitrary in character, but self-consis-
1 E&3.iff; Isa.6.iff.
* On this concept cf. F. Ascnsio, Misericordia et Veritas (Analccta Gregoriana,
xlviii, Scries Fac. ThcoL, Sect. B, No. 19), 1949, pp. i ff., 197 ff.; J. G. C. van
Dorsscn, DC derivata van de stem 'mn in het Hebreeuwsch van het Oude Testament, 1951 ;
also P. Bonnetain, in S.D.B., iii, 1938, cols. 1255 ff., G. Quell, in TTi.W.B. t i,
'932, pp. 233 ff., P. Humbert, Problems du livre WHabacuc, 1944, pp. 149 f., and
E. Perry, J.B.R., xxi, 1953, pp. 252 ff. P. Joiion (Melanges de VUnutrsM de
St.-Josefh, v, Part i, 1911, pp. 406 ff.) argues that when 'ineth is parallel to
**%, it means 'grace 1 rather than 'faithfulness*.
The Nature of God 67
tent and to be relied on. He does not resort to the exercise of
his power to cover fickleness, which man is therefore powerless
to question. In him there is no fickleness, but in all that he is
and all he does he is to be trusted. It is true that there are many
passages where God, is ,3i<i to, .repent of having done some-
thing. This term is not used in a moral sense, however, imply-
ing that God recognized that he had been at fault. There is
certainly an element of anthropomorphism in the term, and it
is used at various levels of meaning in the Old Testament. In
general terms it may be said to mean that God changed his
mind, not because of fickleness in himself, but because of failure
in men or because of man's repentance. Just as in prophecy
there was a contingent element, 1 so that if men profited by the
warning it could serve its purpose without the necessity for the
judgement announced, so in grace there was a contingent
element, so that if men failed to respond to the grace of God
they forfeited its fruits. To represent either process anthropo-
morphically as a change of God's mind, as though he rued the
judgement or the blessing that he purposed, is not to conceal
the fact that in either case the real cause is to be sought in man
and not in God.
There are, indeed, passages in the Old Testament which
suggest that God is arbitrary, such as that in which we are told
that he moved David to number the people and then punished
him, and, indeed, his people with him, for doing so. 2 But it has
been already said that the Old Testament is not to be read as
on a flat level, and that within its pages we have depicted a
long process of development. In the particular instance noted
it should be remembered that a later writer reflects a more
developed theology in ascribing the moving of David to number
the people to Satan instead of to God. 8 In any case such a pas-
sage as the former of these represents ideas that were abandoned,
rather than the enduring thread of the religion of the Old
Testament. It was the belief in God's faithfulness which was
more significant and which persisted.
Yet again, in the complex of events connected with the
Exodus it is clearly brought out that God is an electing God. 4
1 Cf. Jer. 18.7 ; Joel 2.12 ff. a II Skm. 24.1 ff. 8 I Chron. 21.1.
4 On. this concept cf. K. Galling, Die Erwdhhmgstraditwnen Israels > 1928; H. H.
Rowley, The Biblical Doctrine of Election, 1950; Th. C. Vriezen, Die Erwahlimg
Israels nach dm Alien Testament (A.T.A.N.T.), 1953.
68 The Faith of Israel
THs was firmly held throughout the Old Testament, and in-
deed the thought of him as an electing God is vital to the teach-
ing of both Testaments, though it has fallen into the back-
ground in much modern thought. God chose Israel for himself s
and sent Moses to bring her out of Egypt in Ms name. He did
not choose her because she was strong or cultured or good;
but precisely because she was weak and helpless and down-
trodden. Only so could he reveal those elements of his character
which he purposed to reveal, and which we have seen to belong
to the very texture of the revelation. There was thus nothing
arbitrary in his election. It was the revelation of his character,
There was nothing in it to foster self-esteem in the elect,
though there were many in Israel who preened themselves on
it. In the same way many Christians have shown a spirit of
pride and superiority to others, though the New Testament
says "God commendeth his own love toward us, in that while
we were yet sinners Christ died for us.' 1 In both Testaments
need rather than worth is what calls forth the election, and the
election is not something that merely confers a favour on the
elect. It demands a response, and a response in service. At
Sinai God's election of Israel found that response in the Cove-
nant. 2 Of the importance of the idea of the Covenant 3 in the
thought of the Old Testament there can be no doubt, but of its
1 Rom. 5.8.
2 On the meaning of the Covenant in the Old Testament cf. R. Valeton, .4. W.,
xii, 1892, pp. i ff., 224 ff., xiii, 1893, pp. 245 ff,; R. Kraetzschmar, Die Bundesvor-
stellung im Alien Testament, i, 1894; P. Karge, Geschichte des Bundesgedankens im
Alien Testament (A. A., ii, 1-4), 1910; E. Lohmeyer, Diaiheke, 1913;,!. Pedersen,
Der Eid bei den Semiten, 1914, pp. 21 ff., and Israel /-//, E.Tr., pp. 263 ff.; G.
Quell, in Th.W.B., ii, 1935, pp. 106 ff.; J. Begrich, Z.A.W., be (N.F. xix), 1944,
pp. i ff.; P. van Imschoot, N.R.Th., bcxiv, 1952, pp. 785 ff. W. Eichrodt has built
his Thtologie des Alien Testaments, 2nd and 3rd ed., 1948, largely in terms of
Covenant. Cf. also L. Koehler, Theologie des Alien Testaments, 3rd ed., 1953, pp.
43 ff,, O. Procksch, Theologie des Alien Testaments, 1950, pp. 572 ff., and P. van
Imschoot, Thfologie de I'Ancien Testament) i, 1954, pp. 237 ff.
3 It is generally agreed that the tradition of a Covenant goes back to the earliest
sources. In Ex. 24.9 ff. we read that Moses and the elders ascended the sacred
mountain and there partook of a sacred meal in the presence of God. This
passage is ascribed to J by Carpenter (loc. cit.), S. R. Driver (op. cit,, p. 254),
Oesterley and Robinson (loc. cit), McNeile (op. cit., p. 148), H. Trabaud (in
La Bible du Centenaire, i, 1941, p. 103), to E by C. Steuemagel (Einleitung in das
Alte Testament, 1912, p. 150), and to the earliest layer of E by Baentsch (Exodus-
Leviticus (H.K.), 1905, p. 216) and Beer (pp. cit., p. 126), while Eissfeldt (op.
cit., p. 152*) assigns it to the source L, which is the oldest of all the sources into
which he analyses the Pentateuch. This passage refers to a covenant meal, and
G. R. North (The Old Testament Interpretation of History, 1946, p. 30) says this may
well be the oldest story of the Covenant we have. Procksch, however (op. cit.,
p. 83), assigns it to P, the latest strand of the Pentateuch. This is very unlikely.
The Mature of Go^ 69
character there is often much misunderstanding. It was not a
commercial bargain or a legal contract, 1 but rather Israelis
pledge of loyalty to him who had first chosen and saved her. It
laid no obligations on God, who had already of Ms free grace
both pledged himself to Israel and given the evidence of Ms
devotion to her in the deliverance he had wrought. 2 On Israel's
side it was as unconditional as God's deliverance of her had
been.
The fruits of Israel's deliverance would be shared by future
generations. They would not alone inherit the freedom from
Egypt, but would also inherit the revelation of God's character
given to Israel in the experience which had been hers. For
Israel was enjoined to cherish the memory of the Exodus 3 and
indeed always did so. Yet the election was not the automatic
inheritance of all the generations of the Israelites. 'Now there-
fore, if ye mil truly obey my voice, and keep my covenant, ye shall be
my own treasure among all peoples. 53 From Ms side God
pledged Mmself never to repudiate the bond wMch his own love
had forged; but from her side Israel could break it. And if she
broke it, it would be broken. Any generation wMch declined
to make its own the Covenant by the renewal of its own loyalty
to God would repudiate its election and declare that it no
longer wanted the bond between Israel and God to continue.
Yet it is everywhere made clear that any generation wMch so
repudiated the Covenant could only disgrace itself. Nowhere is
it supposed that each generation should decide de novo whether
it desired the bond to continue. Rather was it taught that on
1 G. E. Wright, The Challenge qf Israel's Faith, 1944, p. 73 (Englished., 1946, p. 90),
speaks of the Covenant in terms of a contract. Against this conception of it cf.
E, Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 54, and R. B. Y. Scott, The Relevance of the Prophets,
1944, p. 12.
2 Cf. C. H. Dodd, KTh.R. t xxiii, 1948, pp. n f.: 'God's Covenant is a dvMkS^
and not a synthkS' t that is to say, God fixes the terms of the Covenant and offers
it to man that he may accept it: the acceptance is also essential'. Cf. Procksch,
op. cit., p. 92.
8 Ex. 19.5. This verse is assigned to the earliest source of the Pentateuch, J, by
S. R. Driver (Exodus (Camb. B ), p 170), and by Oesterley and Robinson (op.
cit., p. 37). Eissfeldt (op. cit., p. 146*) assigns it to E, and G. Beer (Exodus
(H.A.T.), p. 97) to the oldest layer of E. A. Weiser (Eirdeitung, 2nd ed., p. 89)
thinks this chapter is from E with some J additions, while Carpenter (op. cit.,
p. 517) assigns verses 30-6 to the JE Redactor. All of these therefore assign the
verse to an early date. Some other scholars would put it later. So B. Baentsch
(op. cit., p. 172), G. Steueraagel (loc. cit.), McNeile (Exodus (West G.), 2nd ed.,
p. no), Trabaud (loc. cit., p. 94), and C. A. Simpson (op. cit., p. 199), who
assign it to the D Redactor.
yo The Faith of Israel
every generation rested the moral obligation to renew the
Covenant in its own life, since each generation inherited a
blessing which imposed its claim upon it.
The election therefore called for loyalty and obedience,
without which it was repudiated. It called for hesedh from
Israel, which may be simply, if inadequately, defined as a
devotion to God which was a fitting response to his devotion
to her, and an initiative in unselfish service to men that was a
reflection of God's initiative in service to Israel. 1 Without this
quality any generation would declare more effectively than by
any verbal repudiation that it no longer desired to be the people
of God. It would proclaim its unwillingness to reflect the
character of the God whose will for men was revealed in his
character, and would thus be withholding the only response
which could give reality to the Covenant.
Yet even so, God could not lightly give up his people, but by
the warning voice pf the prophets and by the discipline of
experience sought to reclaim their loyalty. The electing grace
which lay at the heart of Israel's deliverance from Egypt and
which called forth the first response in the Covenant would
renew its claim so long as Israel's repudiation was not final and
complete. With brilliantly effective anthropomorphism Jere-
miah expresses the divine reluctance to give up the Israel that
from her side repudiated him in terms of his rising up early in
the morning to send the prophets to her with his message in
eager yearning to bring her back to himself in loyalty. 2 Equally
moving is the almost heart-broken cry which Hosea speaks of
God as uttering 'How can I give thee up, Ephraim? how can I
surrender thee, Israel? . . . my heart is turned within me, my
compassions are stirred together.' 8
That reluctance to give up Israel shows itself in the con-
tinuance of the election in the Remnant, 4 when the nation as a
1 The word fusedh has been much discussed. It will here suffice to refer to N.
Glueck, Das Wort fcsed im alttestamentlichen Sprachgebrauche (B.Z.A.W., No. 47),
1927; W. F. Lofthouse, Z.A.W., li (N.F. x), 1933, pp. 29 ff.; J. A. Montgomery,
H.T.R., xxxii, 1939, pp. 97 ff.; N. H. Snaith, op. cit., pp. 94 ff.; F. Asensio, op.
cit., pp. 32 ff.; H. J. Stocbe, F.T., ii, 1952, pp. 244 ff.; and the very long article
by P. Bonnetain on 'Grace' in S.D.B., iii, 1938, cols. 701-1319, where a full
bibliography will be found. Also now A. R. Johnson, in Interpretationes ad Vttus
Testammtum fertinenUs (Mowinckel Festschrift =JV". 7". T., Ivi, 1-2 Hefte), 1955,
pp. 100 ff. (issued while the present work was in the press).
Gf. Jer. 7.13, 25, 11.7, 25.4, 26.5, 29.19, 32.33, 35.14, 44.4.
8 Hos. 1 1 .8. * On the concept of the Remnant cf. below, pp. 103 If., 1 1 7 IF.
The Nature of God 7 1
whole is disloyal* Everywhere the claim of the election is for
loyalty and service, and only in so far as it finds this response
does it fulfil its purpose. It brings privilege, indeed, but it also
involves responsibility, and no thought of th<S Old Testament
teaching on election that fails to do justice to both sides can
rightly unfold its teaching about God.
It is often said that monotheism is characteristic of the three
religions which derive in various ways from the Old Testament,
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and that it is found nowhere
eke. Such unity as is found in other faiths is different from the
personal unity of the Godhead found in these religions. How
far it is legitimate to describe the faith of Israel as monotheistic,
however, is a question that calls for some consideration. By
many writers Israelite monotheism is thought to have had its
beginnings in the eighth century prophets 1 and to have been
attained only by Deutero-Isaiah, 2 and to have marked the
later religion of the post-exilic period, but not to have been a
feature of the faith of the Old Testament as a whole. By others
it is maintained that full monotheism was achieved in the
teaching of Moses. 3 It seems more probable that the truth lies
between these two positions, and that the seeds of monotheism
are to be found in the work of Moses though not its full achieve-
ment. 4 If this is so, we have here one more example of the rich
significance of the revelation given through the Exodus and
through Moses, where, as with the other elements of the char-
acter of God there revealed, we have a revelation which is only
incipient, but which became clearer and fuller through the
inspired work of the prophets.
It is hard to find any evidence that Moses either believed or
1 Cf, I. G. Matthews, The Religious Pilgrimage of Israel, 1947, p. 129, A. Gausse,
Les Prophites d j Israel et les religions de I 9 Orient, 1913, p. 62, attributed the beginnings
of monotheism to Elijah.
* Cf. R. H. Pfeiffer, J.B.L., xlvi, 1927, p. 194.
8 Cf. F. James, A. Th.R., xiv, 1932, pp. 130 ff. ; W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to
Christianity, 2nd ed., p. 206. R. de Vaux goes further, and maintains that the
patriarchs were monotheists; cf. Initiation Biblique, ed. by A. Robert and A.
Tricot, 2nd ed., 1948, pp. 827 f.
* Cf, H. H. Rowley, E.T., Ixi, 1949-50, pp. 333 jff.; also G. E. Wright, Theology
Today , iii, 1946, pp. 185 f. It is to be observed that already in the J document,
which is commonly dated in the ninth century, and therefore long before the
time of Amos, we find Yahweh described as 'the judge of all the earth* in Gen.
18.25. This does not necessarily imply monotheism, and may not go beyond
monarchical theism, Yahweh being regarded as the supreme, and not the only,
God.
j% The Faith of Israel
taught that Yahwefa was the only existing God, and that he was
therefore not alone the God of Israel but of all men. On the
other hand. It does not seem sufficient to note that at Sinai it
was affirmed that Yahweh was alone the legitimate object of
Israelite worship, and that there was no denial of the existence
of other gods. For there were in the story the seeds of mono-
theism. The bringing out of Israel is not represented as a con-
test between Yahweh and the gods of Egypt. Those gods are
ignored as negligible. Yahweh's will alone counted, and his
power could not be challenged^ while all the forces of Nature
were obedient to his will. He could choose for himself what
people he would. Whether other gods exist is neither affirmed
nor denied. 1 But that they mattered is implicitly denied.
Yet whatever degree of monotheism was attained then was
lost later, when in the popular worship other gods were not
alone recognized as legitimate for other peoples, but were
actually worshipped in Israel. Hence we find the need for the
teaching of the great pre-exilic prophets, in which there is a
clear but implicit monotheism, 2 and that of Deutero-Isaiah, in
which speculative monotheism is explicitly set forth. Re-
peatedly it is here declared that Yahweh alone is God, and
that all other gods are non-existent and their idols symbols of
unreality. 3 Moreover, the same prophet taught the corollary of
monotheism in universalism. 4 If there is but one God, then he
must be the God of all men. Here again is something which
finds its seeds in earlier teaching, and which meets us in many
forms in the pre-exilic writers. Suffice it to mention the familiar
passage attributed to both Isaiah 5 and Micah, 6 in which the age
1 G. R. Berry, A.J.7Tt., v, 1901, p. 262, objects to the use of the term monolatry
to describe the religion of Moses, since there is no explicit recognition of the
reality of other gods. He prefers to describe it as a practical monotheism. So
also B. Baentsch, Altoruntalischer und israelitischer Monotheismus, 1906, p. 87.
S G Amos 4.13, 5.8, 9.7. In I Kings 8.60 and II Kings 19.15, 2p, explicit
monotheism is attributed to Solomon and Hezekiah. It is doubtful if we have
here the ipsissima verba of Solomon and Hezekiah, however. In the former passage
there are marks of the influence of the Deuteronomic style on the prayer, which
may with probability be ascribed to the Deuteronomic editor of the books of
Kings in their present form. The same editor may have similarly given its
present form to the prayer of Hezekiah. The last event recorded in the books of
Kings occurred in 561 B.C., and it is probable that the books were completed
shortly after this date. This brings the probable date of these passages very close
to the date of Deutero-Isaiah, when we have explicitly formulated monotheism.
8 Gf. Isa. 44.6, 8, 45.5 f., 1 8, 21, 22.
* Gf. Isa. 42.6, 45,22, 49.6.
* Isa. 2.2 ft Micah 4.1 ff.
The Mature of God 73
of universal peace, when men will no longer need swords and
spears, is declared to be the age when all men will first go up
to the house of Israel's God and will learn his way.
It is indeed surprising, and not easily to be accounted for on
simple evolutionary lines, that Israel attained a monotheistic
faith. She was never a jpowerful nation, and her monotheism
was in no sense the reflection of the prestige of the nation in the
prestige of its God. Assyria imposed the recognition of her gods
as the suzerains of the gods of conquered peoples, and the
prowess of her armies was thought to reflect the power of her
gods, whose prestige in turn was enhanced by their exploits.
But in Israel it was not so, and the prophet who most specifically
formulates a monotheistic faith was the spokesman of a people
living in exile* Her monotheism is not the expression of national
pride, since the prophets were the spokesmen of judgement
rather than of a superficial patriotism. It is the gift of revelation,
begun in Moses and continued in the prophets, whereby God
was making himself known, first to the people of his choice, and
then through them to all his creatures.
The character of God is an inexhaustible subject, and even
his character as unfolded in the revelation given in the Old
Testament cannot be compassed in a single lecture. That great
and enduringly valid glimpses of that character may be found
here will emerge from what has been said. He is a compas-
sionate and a saving God, one who chooses men for his holy
purposes and who calls them to privilege and service, a gracious
and holy God, righteous and faithful, one who is alone and
without rival and therefore the only legitimate object of the
worship of all men, and, moreover, one whose resources are
ever equal to his own wise purposes all this and more is writ
large upon the Old Testament. 1 It belongs to the faith of
Israel, and to the faith which Israel has mediated to the world.
1 Of. J. Lindblom, loc. cit., p. 135: *Gott ist einer, ein Gott nicht nur der Sdiop-
fungjsondenivorallem der Geschichte, der als souvei&ner, heiliger, personlicher
Wille den Geschichtslauf einera. weltgeschichtlichen Ziel planmassig entgegen-
leitet, Gott hat das Volk Israel fur hohe Zwecke auserwahlt und ist zu diesem
Volke, bzw. semen einzelnen Gliedern, in echt personliche Beziehungen getreten.
Das personliche Handeln Gottes ist von ethischen Gesetzen bestimmt und
wurzelt dem Menschen gegenxiber in den heiligen Liebe und dem heiligen Zorn.
In seinen Forderungen dominiert ebenfalls das SittHche und Personliche*.
Ill
THE NATURE AND NEED OF MAN 1
MAN is the creature of God. Both of the accounts of creation
with which the Bible opens proclaim this faith. In the second
account, which is believed to belong to the earliest of the main
sources of the Pentateuch, we find God moulding man's body
of the dust of the earth, and breathing into it the breath of life,
so that it becomes a living soul. 2 The animals are also termed
living souls, 8 and it would seem that there is nothing to dis-
1 On the subject of this lecture cf. W. Eichrodt, Das Menschenverstandnis des Alien
Testaments (A.T.A.N.T.), 1944 (E.Tr. by K. and R. Gregor Smith, 1951);
C. Ryder Smith, The Bible Doctrine of Man, 1951, The Bible Doctrine of Sin, 1953,
and The Bible Doctrine of Salvation, 1941; G. Pidoux, UHomrne dans VAnden
Testament (G.Th.), 1953; also the relevant sections of the theologies of the Old
Testament noted above, p. 48 n., and W. Rudolph, *Das Menschenbild des Alten
Testaments 1 , in Dienst unter dem Wort (Festgabe fur H. Schreiner), 1953, pp. 238 if.
* Gen. 2.7. It would be better to render by 'living being*; cf. E. F. Sutcliffe,
Scripture, v, 1952, pp. 47
* Gen. 2.19. Here the same phrase is used as in 2.7, but it is generally^ held to be a
gloss. So H. Gunkel, Genesis (H.K.), 5th ed., 1922, p. n, H. Holzinger, Genesis
(K.H.G^, 1898, p. 29, J. Skinner, Genesis (I.G.G.), 1910, p. 68, and O. Procksch,
Genesis (K.A.T.), 1924, p. 27. The same phrase is elsewhere used in P of the
animal world (Gen. 1.20, 24, 30, 9.12, 15, 16; also in Ezek, 47.9), but A. R.
animal world (Gen. 1.20, 24, 30, 9.12, 15, 16; also in Ezek, 47.9), but A. R.
Johnson (The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel, 1949, p. 23 n.)
differentiates this syntactically from the phrase found in Gen. 2.7, and observes
that whereas nephesh is used elsewhere by itself to denote a human being, there
does not appear to be any example of its use by itself with exclusive reference to the
animal world. It is to be noted, however, that it is used of animals in Dcut.
not for the totality of its being; it stands only for the non-fleshly element of its
make up. J Moffatt (The Old Testament; a New Translation) renders 'the blood is
the soul*, and similarly Buber and Rosenzweig (Die funf Bucher der Weisung) :
*das Blut ist die Seele*. It is clear that animals and men were recognized to be
animated bodies, and if man is denned merely in terms of an animated body, as
is not seldom done by modern writers, it is hard to see what distinction from the
animals is allowed for. It is true that in Gen. 2 it is not said that God breathed
into the animals the breath of life, but neither is it said that he did this for
woman. In Gen. 7.22, however, the phrase 'everything hi whose nostrils was the
breath of life* clearly includes the animals. On the much discussed term nephesh
cf. G. A. Briggs, J.B.L., xvi, 1897, PP. 17 ff., H. Wheeler Robinson, in Mansfield
College Essays (presented to A. M. Fairbairn), 1909, pp. 269 ff., E. D. Burton,
A.J.1K, xviii, 1914, pp. 68 ff., and M. Lichtenstein, Das Wort nephesh in der
Bibel, 1920.
74
The Nature and Nezd of 75
tingiiish man from the animals in the fundamental nature of
his being. Yet in the continuation of the story it becomes dear
that man is conceived of as having a moral nature, such as is
attributed to none of the lower creatures. In the first account
of creation, man is represented as the crown and climax of it
all, and he is said to be created in the image of God. 1 By many
writers this is understood to mean that man is in the physical
likeness of God. 2 This seems to me on every ground im-
probable. 8
It is true that we find much anthropomorphic language in the
Old Testament. Reference has already been made to Jeremiah's
representation of God as 'rising early in the morning 9 to send
his prophets to Israel. Most of the anthropomorphisms we find
in the Bible are mere accommodations to human speech, or
vivid pictures used for their psychological effect rather than
theological in significance. We can still speak of the hand of
God, or of his eye, or of bowing before his feet, of the voice of
God or his heart, though we should deny these terms any more
than metaphorical value. In some passages the anthropo-
morphism is expressed with a naive picturesqueness, such as
those in which we read of God moulding Adam's body, 4
building woman from his rib, 5 taking a walk in the Garden of
Eden, 6 or coming down to see what men were doing at Babel. 7
There are passages which represent God as appearing before
men in human form, 8 and others where he sends an angel to
represent Mm 9 the angel often turning into God himself in
the course of the narrative. 10 Yet in the teaching of the Old
Testament God is nowhere conceived of as essentially of
1 Gen. 1.27.
a Cf. A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alien Orients, 4th ed., 1930,
p. 53; P. Humbert, tudes sur le Recit du Paradis et de la Chute, 1940, pp. 153 ff.;
B. D. Eerdmans, The Religion of Israel, 1947, p. 309; L. Koehler, Th.. t iv, 1948,
pp. 1 6 ff.; G. R. North, The Thought of the Old Testament, 1948, p. 27; G. Ryder
Smith, The Bible Doctrine of Man, 1951, pp. 29 Th.G. Vriezen (O.T.&, ii, 1943,
pp. 86 ff.) thinks that both corporal and spiritual qualities are involved; cf. esp.
P-99-
3 Gf. The Unity of the Bible, pp. 75 ff.
4 Gen. 2.7. * Gen. 2.21. 6 Gen, 3.8. 7 Gen. 11.7.
8 Gf. Gen. 12.7, 17.1, 18.1, 32.30.
* Gf. Gen. 16.7 ff., 26.11, Ex. 3.2, Judg. 6.1 1 f.
10 Cf. Gen. 16.13, 31.12, Ex. 3.4 ff., Judg. 6.14 ff. On this cf. A. R. Johnson,
The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God, 1942, pp. 32 ff., and W. G.
Heidt, Angelologv of the Old Testament, 1949, pp. 69 ff.; also earlier G. F. Oehler,
Theology of the Old Testament, Section 69 (Zondervan reprint, pp. 129 ff.).
76 The Faith of Israel
human form. Rather is he conceived of as pure spirit, able to
assume a form rather than as having in himself a physical form. 1
It is probably this conception of God which lies behind the
prohibition of images in the Bible. This we find in the familiar
Decalogue of Ex. 20, 2 and also in the passage in Ex. 34,
which is often referred to as the Ritual Decalogue, and which
is commonly held to be older than the other. Attention is some-
times drawn to the fact that in the one passage we have the
prohibition of graven images and in the other of molten. 4 In
neither is there the slightest suggestion that any other sort of
image, other than the one specified, was permitted. What both
aim to do is to forbid the making of any images, since God
would have none of them. By many scholars the Decalogue of
Ex. 20 is attributed to a late period in Israel's history, 5 and the
existence of images through long periods is held to be evidence
that this provision was unknown. It would not be in place to
argue this question here, but I have elsewhere argued it and
given reasons for believing that the Decalogue of Ex. 20 dates
from the time of Moses, and that the other represents what was
originally a pre-Mosaic form of Decalogue. 8 Both were associ-
ated with the worship of Yahweh, and they provide strong
reason to believe that integral to the worship of Yahweh from
its very beginning was the repudiation of images. 7
Nevertheless it is certain that long after the time of Moses
1 Cf. A. R. Johnson, The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God, 1942,
pp. 18 f.
2 Ex. 20.4. 8 Ex. 34.17.
4 Cf. E. Kautzsch, in D.B., Extra Vol., 1904, p. 641 b: 'Such a carved image
appears to have been for long regarded as unobjectionable, whereas the molten
image is already prohibited in the Jahwistic section of which Ex. 34" forms a
part.*
* Cf. A. H. McNeile, Exodus (West. G.), pp. Ivi ff., H. P. Smith, The Religion of
Israel, 1914, p. 187, A. Lods, Israel, E.Tr. by S. H. Hooke, 1932, pp. 315 f., and
J, N. Schofield, The Religious Background of the Bible, 1944, p. 144, where the
Decalogue is attributed to the prophetic age; and G. Steuernagel, Einleitung in
das Alte Testament, 1912, pp. 259 ff., G. Holscher, Geschichte der israelittschen und
judischen Religion, 1922, p. 129, J. Meinhold, Der Dekalog, 1927, pp. 13 ff., and
G. Beer, Exodus (H.A.T.), 1939, P- *3> where it is assigned to the exilic age or
later.
6 Gf. B.J.R.L., xxxiv, 1951-2, pp. 81 ff. Many other scholars have recognized the
Decalogue of Ex. 20 to be Mosaic; so, amongst others, A. Dillmann, Handbuch der
alttestamentlichen TheologU, 1895, PP- *8> 228 f.; E. Kautzsch, in D.B., Extra
Vol., 1909, p. 634 b; H. Gressmann, Mose und seine %eit, 1913, pp. 471 ff.; R.
Kittel, Geschichte der Hebraer, 6th ed., i, 1923, p. 383, 445 ff.; P. Volz, Mose und
sein Werk, 2nd ed., 1932, pp. 20 ff.; W. Eberharter, in S.D.B., ii, 1934, cols.
341 ff.; A. Weiser, Eiweitung in das Alte Testament, 2nd ed., 1949, pp. 04 f.
' Cf. R. H. Pfeiffer, J.B.L., xlv, 1926, pp. 2! i ff.
The Mature and of Man 77
images of various kinds were made in Israel. 1 Here we have to
remember two things. In the first piace 3 customs that are
eradicated in one age have a tendency to creep back, as Jen
44 sufficiently illustrates. There we read how the practices
associated with the worship of the Queen of Heaven crept back
after being eradicated, and people attributed all the troubles
that had come upon them to the cessation of these old customs.
It would not therefore be surprising if in the conditions de-
picted in the period of the Judges usages which had been
abandoned at Sinai tended to return. In the second place s we
know that in the period following the settlement there was a
constant tendency towards syncretism with the Canaanite
religion, and the practices of a religion which did not repudiate
images invaded Israel. There is no evidence that Moses made
any visible image of Yahweh, in whose name he had led the
people out of Egypt. There is no evidence that any image of
Yahweh stood in the shrine of Shiloh, or in the Jerusalem
Temple, 2 though Ezek. 8.10 is evidence that idols were not
unknown even within its sacred precincts. There is evidence that
a brazen serpent existed in the temple until it was destroyed
by Hezekiah, 8 and that men worshipped it, but the serpent was
a widely current emblem of the fertility cult, and it was not
specifically Yahwistic in its significance. Its creation was attri-
buted to Moses in tradition, 4 but there is no suggestion what-
ever that it was regarded as an image of Yahweh. Moreover,
the fact that when images were made by Jeroboam, 5 they were
made in the form of well-known Canaanite symbols, though
they may have been treated as images of Yahweh, suggests that
there was no specifically Yahwistic form of image that could be
1 Cf. Judg. 3.19, 8.27, 17.3 f., i Sam. 21.9, II Kings 21.7.
2 Gf. E. Sellin, Introduction to the Old Testament, E.Tr. by W. Montgomery, 1923,
p. 41 : "The absence of any images, which is so indubitably attested as regards the
sanctuaries of Shiloh and Jerusalem, must, after all, have had some reason.*
3 II Kings 18.4.
4 Num. 21.8 f. This is probably an. aetiological story c told to explain a symbol that
actually owed its origin to other than Yahwistic belief* (G. B. Gray, Numbers
(I.G.C.), 1903, p. 275). It seems likely that it was a pre-Davidic Jebusite symbol,
which was already in Jerusalem when the Israelites captured it; cf. J.B.Zu,
Mil, 1939, pp. 113 f., and Festschrift fiir Alfred Bertholet, 1950, pp. 461 ff.
5 It is not certain that Jeroboam's bulls were images, indeed. Some scholars believe
that they were empty pedestals, in contrast to the bulls on which Hadad stood.
Gf. H. T. Obbink, Z.A.W., xlvii (N.F. vi), 1929, pp. 267 ; W. Eichrodt,
Theologie des Alien Testaments, 3rd ed., i, p. 50; W. F. Albright, From the Stone
Age to Christianity, and ed., pp. 228 ff.; J. Bright, The Kingdom of God, 1953, p. 50.
y 8 The Faith of Israel
employed. Where we find Images, they are either of syncre-
tistic origin, or are a popular continuance of such ancient, pre-
Mosaic symbols as the teraphim. 1
It is true that when the opposition to syncretism first appears
it does not attack images. Gideon, who broke down a Baal
altar in protest against the syncretism of his day, 2 later himself
made an ephod, which appears to have been an image of some
form* 3 When Micah restored the silver which he had stolen, it
was converted into an image, 4 which was later served by the
grandson of Moses, 5 and ultimately carried to the shrine of
Dan. 6 Not until we come to Hosea do we find any protest
against the sacred bulls. 7 But that does not prove that bull
images were legitimate in the worship of Yahweh, any more
than the other things against which Hosea protested were, or
ever had been, integral to Yahwism as such. It would rather
seem that it was characteristic of Yahwism from its origin that
it had no idol symbols of its own, and that when finally idols
were eliminated with the completeness and rigidity that
marked later Judaism we have a development that was in line
with the essential spirit of the religion.
If, then, God is not thought of as having any physical form
and on that ground unable to be represented by any material
image, it is hard to suppose that any biblical writer, and least
of all the author of Gen. i, with its exalted conception of God,
could think of man as being formed in the physical likeness of
his Creator. Moreover, immediately after the statement that
man was made in the image of God we read of man's sexual
division and the command to be fruitful and multiply. 8 It
cannot be supposed for a moment that any writer of the Old
Testament thought of God in sexual terms, or in terms of
physically reproductive powers. 9 The only elements of man's
physical make up which are mentioned, therefore, are elements
1 On the teraphim cf. B.J.R.L., xxxiv, 1951-2, p. 104 n., and the literature I there
cite; also the valuable note in A. R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel,
1944, pp. 31 f., and the further literature there cited.
2 Judg. 6.28 ff.
3 Judg. 6.27. Gf. B.J.RJL, loc. cit., pp. 102 f. n,
4 Judg. 17.3.
8 Judg. 18.30. The Hebrew text says the priest was the grandson of Manasseh,
but the n is suspended, and is almost certainly an intrusion into the text, as
rabbinical writers, as well as modern scholars, are agreed.
Judg, 18.14 ff- 30* 7 Hos. 8.5, 10.5, 13.2. Gen. 1.28.
Cf. J. Hempel, Z.A.W., Ivii (N.F. xvi), 1939, pp. 75 ff.
The Mature and Nsed of Man 79
which he could not be supposed to share with God. It is hard
to see s then, how the passage can be held to express his physical
likeness to God. Moreover, the distinction between man and
the lower creation was not so much the 'difference of his
physical form as the fact of his spiritual nature. It was this that
he shared with God as against die lower creation. 1
like the animals he has a physical body which is vitalized so
long as there is breath in it. Yet it is not a complete statement of
the biblical view of man to say that he is an animated body.
Animals too are animated bodies, and the cessation of breath
for man and animals spells death. 2 In biblical thought there is
something in man's make-up which he does not share with the
animals, and which gives him a measure of kinship with God.
This is to be found in his spiritual nature. He was made for
God's fellowship and obedience. In the story of the Garden of
Eden he is represented as made for that fellowship, which is
only broken by his disobedience. No command of God is laid
upon the animals, as it is laid upon man, and to none of them is
moral freedom attributed.
It is characteristic of the thought of the Old Testament that
man may understand and do the will of God, may have fellow-
ship with God and walk in his way. He is not klone the creature
of God. He is created for God's service. That he was created in
the image of God is the mark of his spiritual exaltation in the
purpose of God, and of the honour that God conferred upon
him. One of the most familiar of the psalms says that man was
made but little lower than God. 3 When this passage is cited in
the New Testament it takes the form 'little lower than the
angels', 4 and this was the rendering of the Authorized Version
in the Old Testament. This may serve to remind us that in
biblical thought man is not the only spiritual being made for
the fellowship and obedience of God. There are passages such
1 Cf. S. R. Driver, Genesis (West. G.), 1904, p. 15: 'What is meant by the "image
of God", which man is thus said to bear? ... It can be nothing but the gift of
self-conscious reason, which is possessed by man, but by no other animal*. Gf. also
E. Sellin, Theologie des Alien Testaments, 2nd ed., 1936, p. 58, F. Ceuppens,
Gentse /-///, 1946, pp. 46 f., F. Horst, Interpretation, iv, 1950, pp. 259 ff., G. E.
Wright, The Interpreter's Bible, i, 1952, p. 368 a, W. Hess, Bmediktmscke Monat-
sscknft, xxix, 1953, pp. 371 ff.
Cf. Ps. 104.29. Ps. 8.5 (Heb. 6).
4 Heb. 2.7. Similarly LXX and Vulgate. But Jerome rendered minues evm paulo
minus a Deo (cf. H. de Sainte-Marie, Sancti Hieronymi Psalterium iuxta Hebroeo,
, P- IS)-
8o The Faith of Israel
as the Prologue to the Book of Job which depict God as pre-
siding in a heavenly court/ and there are others which speak
of him as dispatching messengers to do his will either invisible
spirits such as the lying spirit to which Micaiah referred^ 2 or
beings who- appeared in human form and spoke with men s
The theological problems involved in the thought of a lying
spirit being in the court of God, or in the account of Satan's
presenting himself there to give his report, need not detain us.
Any treatment of the Old Testament as on a flat level of in-
spiration and authority would mean that these passages
would provide serious problems, but a historical view makes it
possible to regard them as outgrown beliefs.
In the thought of the inter-testamental period there was
developed the conception of a court of evil, set over against
God's court, to which such evil spirits were relegated, and where
they were presided over by Satan or Beliar. 4 In the later teach-
ing of the Old Testament we find that some of the principal
angels of God's court are given names, such as Gabriel 6 anfl
Michael, 6 and they are regarded as the guardians of the
nations and entrusted with standing commissions by God. This
speculation and movement in the direction of dualism may owe
something to Zoroastrian influence in the Persian period, 7 but
it is to be emphasized that its seeds were already found in
Israel, where in all periods good and evil spirits were thought of
as existing. And if evil spirits are represented as being in the
court of God, it is significant that in the cases referred to, the
initiative in their evil is represented as lying with them and not
with God. If they were permitted to carry out their purposes, it
was that God might use them to serve his own, just as he is repre-
sented as using men's purposes to further his own. When Assyria
1 Job 1.6, 2.1. 2 II Kings 22.21 ff.
8 Gf. Gen. 16.7 ff., 19.1 ff. } 22.11 ff., 32.1; Ex.3.2; Num. 22.22 ff.; Judg. 6.11 ff.,
13.3 ff.; II Kings 1.3.
4 Gf. my Relevance of Apocalyptic, 2nd ed., 1947, pp. 63, 65 f., 70, 95, 156; also E.
Langton, Essentials of Demonokgy, 1949, pp. 119 ff.
5 Dan. 8.16, 9,21. fl Dan. 10.13, 21 > l2 - 1 *
* On Persian influence in later Jewish thought cf. E. Stave, fiber den Emfluss des
Parsismus auf das Judentum, 1898; E, Bdklen, Die Verwandtschaft der jildisch-
christlichen mit der parsischen JSschatologie, 1902; L. H. Mills, Avesta Eschatokgy
compared with the Books of Daniel and Revelation, 1908; J. Scbeftelowitz, Die
altpersischen Religion und das Judentum, 1920; E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anf tinge des
Christentums, ii, 4th ed., 1925, pp. 189 ff.; W. O. E. Oesterley, The Jews and
Judaism during the Greek Period, 1941, pp. 85 ff.; W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age
to Christianity, 2nd ed., pp. 275 ff.
The and of 8 1
is described as the rod of God's anger/ it is recognized that her
heart was evil and her act such as to call down punishment upon
her, 2 even though God could use it to serve his own purposes*
If angels are thought of as created to serve God in heaven,
man is thought of as created to serve Mm on earth. God's
command is laid upon him in the moment of his creation. The
command is not something hard and irksome, that subjects man
to any harsh domination by God. c Be fruitful and multiply . .
and have dominion.' 8 'Of every tree of the garden thou mayest
freely eat: but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou
shalt not eat.' 4 Not yet is this the full understanding of the will of
God. Higher words are found in the Law and the Prophets.
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and
with all thy soul, and with aU thy might.' 5 'Cease to do evil:
learn to do good. Seek justice, keep the oppressor within
bounds, 6 give the fatherless their rights, take up the cause of the
widow.' 7 Here and in countless other passages it is assumed that
the will of God is the law for man. At the same time it is realized
that obedience to God is not alone man's duty; it is also his
privilege, and it brings him blessing. *If ye will truly obey my
voice ... ye shall be my own special treasure.' 8
In the Garden of Eden the blessing of obedience was the
fellowship of God, which was broken by disobedience. Yet it is
clear from many passages that the enjoyment of God's fellow-
ship was believed to be still open to men, and the attainment of
the goal of manhood depended upon it. When we are inclined
to dismiss the naive simplicity of the Paradise story, we should
not forget that it enshrined ideas which could be expressed less
naively, and which are so expressed elsewhere in the Bible, and
that those ideas are not to be dismissed because of the form of
the story through which they are presented. 9 The calamity that
befell man in that story was that he was thrust forth from the
presence of God and no longer enjoyed the free intercourse with
1 Isa. 10.5. a Isa. 10.7, 12. 8 Gen. 1.28. * Gen. 2.16 IF. s Deut. 6.5.
* Here R.V. has 'relieve the oppressed*. The verb may mean 'pronounce blessed*,
or 'cause to go straight*. If the former sense is found, as in R.V., the word that
follows has to be revowelled to make it passive. But the latter sense seems more
appropriate here, the word that follows the verb being then given its normal sense
of 'oppressor*. R.S.V. renders 'correct oppression', but the form of the Hebrew
noun is commonly used of an agent.
7 Isa. 1.16 f. * Ex. 19.5.
9 Cf. G. Lambert N.R.Th., Ixxvi, 1954, pp. 919 ff.; also J. L. McKenzie, Theo-
logical Studies, xv, 1954, pp. 541 ff.
82 The Faith of Israel
Ms Maker that he had hitherto enjoyed. That this was expressed
in terms of physical companionship should not blind us to its
enduringly valid teaching that God's fellowship is man's highest
privilege. Later writers, who did not share what we think of as
the crudity of the author of the Paradise story, still used the
metaphor of physical fellowship to express the profoundly
spiritual fellowship to which they called men. When Amos asks
if two can walk together except they be agreed, 1 it is clear that
he not only thinks that men may walk with God, but that it is
important for their well-being that they should do so. 'Seek
Yahweh and ye shall live' 2 he cries elsewhere. God's fellowship
was given to Joseph in a prison. 'Yahweh was with Joseph, and
shewed kindness unto him.' 3 Familiar is the great word Thus
saith the high and lofty one who inhabits eternity, whose name
is Holy: I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also who
is of a contrite and humble spirit.' 4 So, too, with Jeremiah's call
in the name of God 'Let him that glories glory in this, that he
understands and knows me. 35 In none of these passages is the
thought really of men's physical association with God, but of a
spiritual experience which is open to them. Some are thought
of as knowing this experience in a special degree. The prophet
is described as the man who has stood in the council of God,
and who has there learned the counsel of God, 7 entering into
his thought and purpose. But the knowledge of the Lord was
not reserved for prophets alone. When we read God's primary
demands upon men in the memorable passage in the book of
Micah, 8 we find them expressed in terms of the reflection of the
1 Amos 3.3. * Amos 5,6. s Gen. 39.21. 4 Isa. 57.15. * Jer. 9.24 (Heb. 23).
8 Jer. 23.18, 23. Gf. H. Wheeler Robinson, J.T.S., xlv, 1944, pp. 151 ff.
7 Cf. Amos 3.7.
8 Micah 6.8. Many scholars deny this passage to Micah, and assign it to an un-
known prophet of the period of Manasseh's reign (so T. H. Robinson, Die
ZfifilfKleinen Propheten (H.A.T.), 2nd ed., 1954, p. 147). For our present purpose
it is immaterial whether Micah himself is the author, or another a few decades
later. There is, however, today greater caution in labelling the last three chapters
of this book as secondary. Gf. A. George, Michte, Sophonie, Ndkum (Jerusalem
Bible), 1952, j>. 12 : *Une nouvelle periode a commence^ ou Ton ne refuse plus de
lui (i.e., to Micah) attribuer des fragments importants en v.8-vii.i7*. D. Deden
(De Kleme Prqfefen (B.O.T.), i, 1953, P- 2O1 ) regards the whole book as probably
from Micah himself, but compiled by an editor from two collections of his
oracles. Cf. A. Weiser, Die zwdlf Kleinen Propheten (A.T.D.), i, 1949, pp. 203 f.,
and Einleitwg in das AlU Testament^ 2nd ed., 1949, p. 190; and my Growth of the
Old Testament, 1950, p. 116. On this verse George observes (op. cit., p. 39):
'Cette triple exigence, d'ordre tout spirituel, correspond precisement aux reven-*
dications fondamentales des trois grands prophetes ant^neurs & MicheV.
The jfatom and Need of 83
will of God, based on humble fellowship with Mm. Without
fellowship there can be no obedience; without the obedience
there can be no fellowship. Yet this is no deadlock from which
there can be no release. This fellowship with the God in whose
image he was created is open to the man of submissive spirit,
the desire of whose heart is to obey.
This does not mean that man may have an easy familiarity
with God, and know an equal fellowship with him. A vast gulf
separates man from God, and in his presence he must ever be
filled with awe. If that gulf is bridged in fellowship, it is of God's
grace that it is so bridged, and man is filled with the sense of
unspeakable privilege in its enjoyment. The dignity that man
has is his because God conferred it on him, and the highest
dignity is not something inalienably conferred on him in his
manhood, and now inherent in him, but something that is his
only so long as he accepts the conditions it entails. For while he
is often represented as superior to the animal creation, and
charged with the rule of the lower creatures, it is rather in his
potential relation to God that his real dignity lies. He may have
fellowship with God, but only so long as his heart is right with
God, and so long as he bows himself before God in worship and
reflects the will of God in his life.
It is this spiritual kinship with God, making possible a real
fellowship with his Maker, which lies behind the thought that
man was created in the image of God. It also makes possible the
divine inspiration of man. That man is other than God is never
lost sight of in the Bible, which could never be guilty of speaking
of the divinity of man; that man is wholly other than God is
equally alien to biblical thought, and could hardly be accepted
by any believer in the Incarnation. It is important to remember
that though men are frequently held to be the vehicle of the
divine self-revelation this is never conceived of in physical
terms. In the Maccabaean age the persecuting Seleucid
monarch, Antiochus IV, was styled Theos Epiphanes, God
Manifest, because of some fancied likeness between himself and
the traditional representation of Zeus. Such an idea is utterly
alien to the thought of the Bible. Wherever man stands as the
vehicle of divine revelation it is always a spiritual revelation,
and never a physical revelation, such as might have been ex-
pected if its thought of man's likeness to God were primarily in
84 . The Faith of Israel
physical terms. This is the more remarkable since, as we are
often reminded, Hebrew thinking was characteristically con-
crete. The essence of the divine revelation was always in the
intangible realm of the spirit. Even in the early source which
pictures God as coming to the patriarchs in human form, the
real point of the revelation is never in the physical form of God,
but in his message. Similarly when men became the vehicle of
revelation, it was not in themselves but in their message. So
again, when in the New Testament Christ is spoken of as the
image of God/ or when Paul speaks of "the light of the know-
ledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ', 2 none
could suppose that the thought is of the perfect revelation of the
form of God in the body of Christ. The image of God is spiritu-
ally conceived. This is so manifestly true of the Old Testament
as a whole, as well as of the New, that it is highly improbable
that the latest source of the Pentateuch, in which the trans-
cendence of God is particularly emphasized, fell to the level of
thinking of him in essentially physical terms, and virtually
certain that Gen. 1.26 f. is to be interpreted spiritually. 3
Man's body is perceived to be inhabited by something more
than breath. He has also a spirit. 4 It is true that the word which
1 II Cor. 4.4, Col. 1.15; cf. Heb. 1.3. * II Cor. 4.6.
8 Cf. G. E, Wright, The Interpreter's Bible, i, 1952, p. 368 a; F. Ceuppens, op. cit.,
pp. 46 f. Cf. also H. Holzinger, in H.S.A. 71, 4th ed., i, 1922, p. 1 1 : 'Der Gedanke
an cine Nachahmung der Liebesgestalt Gottes 1st fur den Gottesbegriff von P
vollig ausgesehlossen. Der Besitz des gottlichen "Ebenbildes" besteht fur den
Menschen in der Zugehorigkeit zu der Gattung der geistig-sittlichen Wesen,
deren oberste Spitze Gott selbst ist, sowie in der Ordnung, dass er iiber der
gesamten Cibrigen Kreatur steht.*
4 R. Dussaud (Les Origines canantetmes du sacrifice israllite, 2nd ed., 1941, pp. 83 f.;
cf. also Syria, xv, 1935, pp. 267 ff.) holds that man was conceived of as having two
souls, the one spiritual (r&alj) and the other vegetative (nephesh), the latter being
located in the fat parts of the body. Oehler (op. cit., 70 Zondervan reprint,
pp. 150 f.) argues that the r&afi is the source of the nephesh, which exists and lives
only by the power of the r&i#. He finds that the impulse to act proceeds from the
r&ak, but the seat of the personality is the nephesh. Hence 'the Old Testament does
not teach a trichotomy of the human being in the sense of body, soul, and spirit,
as being originally three co-ordinate elements of man; rather the whole man is
included in the basar and nephesh (body and soul) which spring from the union
of the rtiajt with matter* (p. 151). It is notoriously difficult to define the relations
between the terms rtiab and nephesh. Often they are interchangeable; e.g.,
'Impatience* is 'shortness of spirit 1 (Ex. 6.9, Job 21.4) or 'shortness of soul*
(Num. 21.4, Judg. 1 6. 1 6); 'patience* may be length of spirit' (Eccl. 7.8) or
'length of soul* (Job 6.11); 'bitterness* may be 'of spirit*. (Gen. 26.35) or 'of
sour (I Sam. i.io, 22.2, 30.6; Job 3.20, 27.2, and often). Even of God either
term can be used; c Judg. 10.16 (nephesh) and Micah 2.7 (rHafi). Yet they cannot
be simply identified, since in other usages they are not interchangeable. Thus,
for 'myself* the Hebrew said 'my soul*, but not 'my spirit*.
The Mature and Need of 85
is rendered spirit can also mean breath or wind, but it is
clear that in many of its usages it denotes a quality of per-
sonality. 1 When we read, in the already cited text, that God
dwells with Mm that is of a contrite and humble it is
clear that the thought is of character and personality. Similarly,
when the psalmist cries 'Create in me a clean heart^ O God, And
renew a right spirit witMn me', 3 his real thought is not of the
heart and the breath, but of character. Frequently we find a
moral judgement passed upon this rtiah of men. The psalmist
can speak of a man 'in whose spirit there is no deceit.' 4 There are
passages which speak of a change of spirit within the one body.
Saul was told that he should find the spirit of God come upon
him, so that he should become another man 3 5 and elsewhere we
read that an evil spirit rushed upon him and transformed Mm
again. 8 Ezekiel can speak of men's heart of stone being changed
for a heart of flesh, and a new spirit being put within them, 7
God also is thought of in terms ofrtiah, or spirit, and as being
able to communicate of his own spirit to men. We read that the
spirit of God clothed itself with Gideon, 8 and a prophetic
passage opens with the words 'The spirit of the Lord Yahweh is
upon me 5 . 9 This is a great and important element in the Old
Testament thought of man, that he may become the vehicle of
the divine purpose. He not merely has the command of God
laid upon Mm. He may be lifted in some measure into the very
personality of God. This is especially so in relation to the pro-
phets. Without ceasing to be themselves, and while still re-
flecting in style and metaphor their own individuality, outlook,
and experience, they were yet conscious that they were the
mouthpiece of God, the vehicle of his message, and hence they
could address men in the first person, as though they were them-
selves impersonating God. EorJthe purpose of their message
they, were God, an extension of his personalty. 10 They never
forgot that they were ntft "God,"' arid~tEey~~cbuld pass from
speaking God's message in the first person to speaking of him
1 On the meaning and usage of the word r&afr cf. G. A. Briggs, J.BJL., xix, 1900,
pp. 132 ff., W. R. Schoemaker, ibid., xxiii, 1904, pp. 13 ff., E. D. Burton, A.J.Th.,
xviii, 1914, pp. 59 ff., A. R. Johnson, The Vitality of the Individual, pp. 26 ff.;
G. Ryder Smith, The Bible Doctrine of Man, 1951, pp. 9 ff.; and A. Neher,
U Essence du Prophttisme, 1955, pp. 85 ff.
*Isa. 57.15. *Psa. 51.10 (Heb. is). 4 Ps. 32.2. * I Sam. 10.6.
6 1 Sam. 18.10, 19.9. 7 Ezek. 11.19. 8 Judgi 6.34. 9 Isa. 61.1.
10 Cf. A. R. Johnson, The One and the Many, pp. 36 ff.
86 The Faith of Israel
in the third person. It was not that the prophet was in himself
identified with God 3 but that in so far as he was God's messenger
he was an extension of the personality of God while he was de-
livering his message. Yet it is clear from the study of their
prophecies that if their oracles were the oracles of God, they
bore the mark of the personalities of the men through whom
they were spoken. Hence, just as we found subjective and
objective factors in revelation, the human and the superhuman
entwined together, so here in inspiration, which is the organ of
one of the forms of revelation, we find divine and human
factors inextricably interwoven in a way that testifies to the
Old Testament experience of the kinship of man with God, and
of God's otherness than man.
Nor can it be thought that this relationship with God was
reserved for prophets. The prophet could be filled with the
spirit of God to speak his word; but others could be filled with
the spirit to do his work, or to lead his people. Yet again, men
could be filled with his spirit to live in accord with his will. The
psalmist could cry 'Take not thy holy spirit from me*. 1 There are
passages which think of the universal possession of the spirit of
God. When Moses said 'Would God that all Yahweh's people
wece prophets' 2 such a thought is implicit in his word, though a
remote possibility, while Joel could express it as a future cer-
tainty: 'I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh.' 8
Again, in the thought of the Old Testament man is endowed
with moral freedom, and can therefore use that freedom to
resist the will of God. It is often said that later Judaism was
obsessed by the thought of sin, and especially of unconscious
sin. It is true that sin comes before us most in the latest strands of
the Law, but it has long been recognized that many of the ritual
usages preserved in that strand are of ancient origin, 4 and this
is recognized today more fully than ever. 6 But the fact of sin
1 Ps, 51.11 (Heb. 13). 2 Num. 11.29. 8 Joel 2.28 (Heb. 3.1).
4 Cf. A. Kuenen, The Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish State, E.Tr. by A. H.
May, ii> 1875, p. 252: 'The priestly lawgiver neither could nor would create a
new state of affairs, but closely annexed himself to what he found in existence
. . . The sacrifices and feasts to Jahveh were of much older date.' Gf. also
D. C. Simpson, Pentateuchal Criticism, 1914, pp. 126 ff.
6 Gf. S. H. Hooke, The Origins of Early Semitic Ritual, 1938, p. 45: 'It is now gener-
ally recognized that even the late parts of the Pentateuch preserve much early
material, and it is legitimate to use evidence from the Deuteronomic and Priestly
legislation relating to the ritual, with due precaution, as some indication of the
forms of ritual which existed in the pre-prophetic period.*
The and of 87
figures in the Bible from the beginning. The story of Paradise
stands in the earliest strand of the Pentateuch, and it presents
to us the fact of sin. It was sin that came between man and God 5
to break the intimate fellowship of the garden days, an<i&tis to
bring calamity upon man. Various terms for sin arched in the
Bible, 1 but common to every form of sin is its disharmony with
the will of God.
Many of the specific sins which are mentioned, and especially
in the Levitical and Priestly Law, are ritual offences, such as
contact with death or various forms of uncleanness, or the
breach of food tabus, and rites for their removal are presented.
Although these are found in what are believed to be the later
strands of the Law, they are undoubtedly of very ancient origin,
and there is none who would regard them as the climax of the
development of Old Testament thought or religion. The
Christian no longer observes them, and the passages that deal
with them are amongst the least read by him in the Bible.
Nevertheless, they cannot be ignored in a study of the faith of
Israel, since they are not amongst the primitive things that were
outgrown and shed in the course of Israel's history, but amongst
those that persisted throughout the whole Old Testament
period and beyond. In New Testament times many Jews made
these provisions an end in themselves, and observed them with
a precision they did not bring to the observance of the more
ethical and spiritual requirements of the Law, and we find them
scathingly denounced in the Gospels. 2
Here we must not forget that the Law concerned itself also
with moral offences, and while it provided ritual acts for the
cleansing of moral sin, it required those acts to be accompanied
by penitence of spirit and by restitution so far as restitution
could be made. 3 The Law did not encourage the easy thought
that moral sin was a light matter, to be conveniently disposed
of by a formal act that was no more than a formal act. The
book of Proverbs is often thought of as the repository of a some-
what worldly wisdom and not very profoundly spiritual. Yet
1 Cf. C. Ryder Smith, The Bible Doctrine of Sin> 1953, pp. 156".; and G. Quell, in
Th.W.B*> i, 1932, pp. 267 ff. (E.Tr. by J. R. Goates, 1951, pp. I ff.).
2 Cf. J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, E.Tr. by H. Danby, 1925, p. 92: 'Hence he
(i.e., Jesus) stood in opposition to the majority of the Pharisees and their followers,
who made the external act the main object and the underlying intention only
a secondary matter'; cf. also pp. 213 ff.
9 Cf. Lev. 5.5 f., Num. 5.6 f.
88 The Faith qf Israel
here we read 'The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination;
how much more when he bringeth it with a wicked mind.* 1
Moreover, the Law offered no ritual means of expiating what it
calk high-handed sin, by which it probably means sin wilfully
and deliberately indulged in. 2 Nor should we forget that for
heinous sins no ritual act was prescribed. For David's sin with
Bathsheba, or for the murder of Uriah, no ritual act could
atone, and none was prescribed in the Law.
It is therefore probable that those who enshrined in the later
Law of Judaism the ancient tabus and gave so large a place to
the expiation of ritual and technical offences were rather con-
cerned to teach that if even these were to be treated with such
seriousness the more grievous sins were to be held in the deepest
horror. 3 These ritual offences were sins because they were alien
to the will of God, and were therefore to be treated seriously,
and they desired men to hold the will of the holy God in such
awe that they would be filled with deep concern over the most
trifling of them. Despite the danger which these provisions
brought, they do not testify to a shallow view of sin on the part
of the creators of the Law, but rather to a mistaken way of
giving expression to their view. All sin is fundamentally the
performance of acts of which God disapproves, and if even the
Law makes it clear that his deepest disapproval is of man's moral
evil and that penitence of spirit is the first requirement of God,
and that for the worst sins no ritual act could have any meaning
at all, the prophets give to these weightier sins their chief attention.
Turning then from the unwitting and technical offences to
the weightier moral and spiritual offences, we may observe that
sin is recognized to be man's spontaneous act of disobedience to
God. He was made for obedience, but obedience that was not
spontaneous would not be obedience. God compels neither
obedience nor disobedience. Though he made man in his own
image and for his fellowship, it was of the essence of the dignity
of his manhood that he should be morally free and therefore
1 Prov. 21.27. R.V. marg. has here 'to atone for wickedness*, and this is favoured
by some, and reflected in MofFatt's rendering 'to atone for crime*. Cf. also Prov.
15.8. For similar passages in Ecclesiasticus and in the Talmud and Midrash cf.
The Unity of the Bible, p. 46 n.
* Cf. B.J.R.L., xxxiii, 1950-1, pp. 96 f.
8 Cf. Pirke Aboth a.i, where the saying of Rabbi Judah the Prince is recorded:
*Be heedful of a light precept as of a weighty one. 1 Here the meaning is that even
the lightest of sins were serious.
The Mature and Meed of 89
able to repudiate the dignity of character for which he was
designed. When man listens to the seductive voices that call Mm
away from God, his act is essentially his own. But the funda-
mental character of sin is seen in that it comes between a man
and God, and isolates him from his Maker. In the profoundly
penetrating story of the Garden of Eden this is weE brought
out. After his act of disobedience Adam hid himself from the
face of God. 1 Before God drove Mm forth from the garden he
had thus withdrawn himself from God and was conscious of a
barrier wMch was not of God's creation, but his own.
All sin is sin against God. This is continually brought out in
the Bible. When Cain murdered Abel he sinned against God,
and his brother's blood cried out unto God. 2 When David
committed adultery with Bathsheba and had Uriah removed
from his way, he sinned against God. 'And David said unto
Nathan, I have sinned against Yahweh.' 3 When men oppressed
one another, and cheated and defrauded one another, and per-
verted judgement in the courts, they sinned against God ? as
Amos and other prophets declared with insistence. Equally it is
true that all sin is sin against man. It is sin against one's
fellows. Clearly Cain sinned against Abel, and David against
Uriah. But it is not only a sin against the victim of the act. It is
also a sin against society, of wMch the sinner forms a part. By
his sin he lowers its level of goodness, and in various ways
involves others besides Mmself in the consequences of his act.
When Gideon made an ephod 'all Israel went a whoring after
it'. 4 Yet again, all sin is sin against oneself. *He who sins against
me injures Mmself.' 5 Its first consequence is just that it breaks
that fellowsMp with God wMch is the foundation of man's well-
being. Hence, instead of being guided and sustained by that
fellowsMp he stumbles in folly to Ms own hurt. Moreover, it is
as a canker in his soul, demeaning and defiling Ms manhood,
until 'every imagination of the thoughts of Ms heart' becomes
'only evil continually'. 6
1 Gen. 3.8. * Gen. 4.10. * II Sam. 12.13. * Judg. 8.27.
5 Prov. 8.36. R.V. marg. and R.S.V. understand the verse to mean *he who misses
me injures himself, and note the contrast with the preceding verse, *he who finds
me*. This is probably correct; but he who misses God misses him because he
sins, and the verb is used for *to sin* just because sin was regarded as a missing
of the mark. Ben Sira probably reflects this verse when he says : *He who sins
offends against his own soul* (Ecclus. 1 9.4) .
8 Gen. 6.5.
go The Faith of Israel
God's reaction to sin is not merely to punish it. In a sense it is
rather the sinner who punishes himself and those around him.
, By abandoning the way of God he misses the goal of his own
well-being, and it is rather he than God who brings about the
discipline of sorrow. Yet the recognition that God is not a mere
spectator of his world, but active on the plane of history and
experience, leads also to the thought that he has not merely
put it into the nature of a moral universe to discipline the
sinner, but that he himself is active in the discipline. 1 It has
already been said that if this is evidence of the wrath of God
and of his justice, it is equally evidence of his love. For God's
love is not soft sentimentality that is indifferent to moral con-
siderations. It is strong to discipline man for his good, and to
awaken him to a sense of his folly, or when there is no hope of
his reform to discipline him to awaken others to a sense of the
folly of sin.
It is more characteristic of the thought of the Old Testament
to regard punishment of sin as disciplinary than as penal,
though both figure in its pages. When it is merely penal, it is
the indication that discipline can have no effect on the disci-
plined, since moral decay has gone too far. Nowhere is sin
thought of as atoned for by punishment, so that by the mere fact
of punishment fellowship is restored. 2 It is when punishment
has wrought its work of chastening the spirit that fellowship is
restored. This thought is common in the Deuteronomic frame-
work of the book of Judges, where it is the community rather
than the individual that is in mind. By religious declension and
the decay of the spirit the people called down upon themselves
1 Thus in the story of man's first sin, Adam first isolated himself from God by his
sin, and then God is represented as driving him forth from the garden.
* Taken by itself, Isa. 40.2 might seem to present such a view, since the^prophet
is bidden to cry to Jerusalem 'that her time of hard service is ended, and her
iniquity pardoned, for she hath received of Yahweh's hand double for all her
sins'. But it is clear from the following chapters that Deutero-Isaiah believed that
her spirit had been chastened so that she was now ready to return to obedience.
Again and again she is described as the servant of Yahweh, and nowhere is the
thought found that she is entitled to deliverance and restoration, whether she
gives obedience or is indifferent to God (cf. B. W. Helfgott, The Doctrine of
Election in Tannaitic Literature, 1954, p. 65, where R. Joshua ben Hananiah's view
that 'salvation will come to Israel regardless of whether they repent or not' is
cited). It is 'they that wait for Yahweh' who renew their strength (Isa. 40.31),
and if the men of Israel are promised help (Isa. 41.14) there is the faith that they
will rejoice in Yahweh (Isa. 41.16). The whole burden of the message of Deutero-
Isaiah is of the grace of God, to be proved anew in the deliverance she will
experience, and not the thought that she has earned it by her punishment.
The Nature and Meed of gi
the chastening experience of foreign oppression until they were
ready to return to God, when a new leader was raised up to
deliver them. In Individual experience it is also true that when
the heart is softened by sorrow, and the sinner humbles himself
before God, fellowship may be restored. 1
Nor does God rely merely on the entail of sorrow that sin
brings to awaken men to the foUy of their way. He sends his
prophets to warn men of the folly of the way wherein their feet
are set. Jeremiah, with that anthropomorphism which has been
already noted, speaking of God rising up early to send his
prophets, finely expresses the conception of the yearning desire
of God to reclaim the sinner, a yearning desire which figures
elsewhere in other ways. Certainly the ministry of the prophets,
with their emphasis on conformity to the moral will of God, is
something unique in the history of the ancient world, and God
did not leave himself without witness in Israel, to call men back
to himself and his obedience. Sometimes their word was effective
and penitence was induced. So when David sinned and the
prophet Nathan rebuked him, it was not the death of Bath-
sheba's child which broke his heart in contrition, but the word
of Nathan which led him to say *I have sinned against Yahweh* 2
The end, whether of the discipline of events or the ministry of
the prophets, was submission to God and renewed obedience to
his will*
Beyond this the Old Testament has a message of salvation.
It does not speak only of discipline and warning to deal with the
dark fact of sin which comes between man and God to frustrate
the purpose of his creation. It offers power for the cleansing
from sin and the renewal of fellowship. To review the whole
range of the concept of salvation in the Bible is impossible here.
Often it is national salvation from foreign foes who would con-
quer, or who have oppressed. In the individual sphere it might
be salvation from disease, or trouble, or powerful oppressors. In
all this there is nothing of unusual significance, however. Men
have always looked to their gods to save them from this kind of
situation, and have resorted to prayer in the assurance that
salvation may be the act of the deity. Nor was Israel unique in
1 Cf. II Sam. 12.13. a II Sam. 12.13.
8 Cf. A. M&Iebielle, 'Expiation dans 1'Ancien Testament', in S.D.B., iii, 1938,
cols. 48 ff.
92 The Faith of Israel
seeking salvation from sin. Where sin was ritually conceived^
it was held to be capable of ritual removal. The god was be-
lieved to be the remover, but he was thought to be open to
ritual persuasion to exercise his power. In Israel, too, with its
deeper conception of sin there was a ritual of salvation. And
here the sacrificial ritual calls first for notice.
The religion of Israel, like that of the surrounding peoples,
whose religion formed the background out of which it came and
in the setting of which it developed, expressed itself through the
ritual of sacrifice. Of the origin of sacrifice and its presumed
first meaning, it would not be in place to speak here, save to say
that it is improbable that any simple theory does justice to the
facts. 1 Certainly within the Old Testament no theory of a
single purpose of sacrifice can be satisfactory. For it is clear that
whereas some sacrifices were propitiatory, all were not. 2 The
thank offering 8 was certainly not. Some sacrifices were con-
ceived of as charged with an effect upon the persons who
offered them, or upon others for whom they were offered. The
purpose of the sacrifices which Job offered at the conclusion of
each of the rounds of his sons' feasts was in part to turn away
the anger of God, which might have been aroused by any
thoughtless word or deed of theirs, and in part to cleanse his
sons. 4 The variety of the sacrifices and of the meaning given to
them must always be remembered. Nor can a single sacrifice
be adequately interpreted in terms of a single idea. While one
element might be especially prominent, others might also be
present.
It has been maintained that the sacrificial ritual of Israel
was essentially of Canaanite origin. 6 Such a view may claim
some support from Amos 5.25 and Jer.y. 22, as these texts are
commonly understood. Amos asks 'Did you bring me sacrifices
and offerings during the forty years in the wilderness, O house
of Israel?*, while Jeremiah says Tor I did not speak unto your
fathers, or give them commands concerning burnt offerings or
sacrifices in the day that I brought them out of the land of
Cf. B.J.R.L., xxxiii, 1950-51, PP-
* On sacrifice cf. W. P. Patersoa, in DJ?., iv, 1902, pp. 329 ff., G. F. Moore, in
2LB.,iv, 1907, cols. 4183 ff., G. B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament, 1925, and
W. O. E. Oesterley, Sacrifices in Ancient Israel, 1937.
* Gf. Lev. 7.1 1 ff., where the thankoffering is treated as a variety of the peace-
offering.
4 Job 1.5. * Cf. especially R. Dussaud, op. cit.
The and Need of 93
Egypt/ Both of these texts would seem to deny that Israel had
offered sacrifice In the wilderness period. I have more than
once offered my reasons for dissenting from the common view. 1
In passages of greater antiquity than the time of Amos we find
references to sacrifices in the time of Moses, and if Amos and
Jeremiah had wished to challenge this tradition they would
have done so more directly than by a rhetorical question and a
passing allusion. Moreover, the sacrifice of the Passover is
fundamental to the story of the Exodus, and it is difficult to
suppose that these two prophets denied that it had been or-
dained by God or actually offered.
Quite apart from these two texts, however, it may be agreed
that much of Israel's ritual was probably of Canaanite origin,
or of pre-Mosaic origin. 2 On the testimony of the Old Testament
itself there was much intermarriage of Canaanite religious
practice with Israelite religion through long periods, and while
some things were ultimately eliminated others remained, to be
embodied in the practice of Israel and made the vehicle of her
faith.
It is, however, unlikely that all of Israel's ritual was taken
over from her Canaanite neighbours. Even if it were, we should
still have to recognize that the significance attached to the rites
is of more importance than the rites themselves, and that in the
true faith of Israel that significance may not be the same as in
Canaanite religion. The Passover, which was almost certainly
not taken over from the Canaanites, but offered before the
Israelites entered the land, was probably of very ancient and
pre-Mosaic origin. 3 But from the time of Moses its significance
was linked with the deliverance of the Exodus, and whatever
meaning it may have had before was no longer of importance
1 Gf. B.J.R.L., xxix, 1945-6, pp. 16 ff., xxxiii, 1950-1, pp. 79 ff., and The Unity of
the Bible, pp. 30 ff.
2 Cf. J. Pedersen, Israel III-IV, 1940, p. 317: 'Our knowledge of the Phoenician-
Canaanite cult is now quite sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the greater
part of the Israelitish sacrificial practices had been learnt from the Canaanites*.
Cf. J. P. Hyatt, Prophetic Religion, 1947, p. 128; S. H, Hooke, The Origins of Early
Semitic Ritual, 1938, pp. 45 ff.
* E. Dhonne, La Religion des Hlbreux Nomades, 1937, p. 2ji> says: *Tel est le ritue!
de la Paque dans sa primitive simplicity et je ne trouve point d'exemple plus
typique du sacrifice des nornades'. On the Passover cf. D.B., loc. cit., pp. 338 f.,
and E.B., loc. cit., cols. 4207 ff.; G. B. Gray, J.T.S., xxxvii, 1936, pp. 241 ff.;
N. H. Snaith, The Jewish New Tear Festival, 1947, pp. 13 ff.; T. H. Gaster,
Passover; its History and Tradition, 1949; and H. Haag, Luzerner Theologische
Studien, 1954, pp. 17 ff.
94 Th Faith of Israel
for her. Not alone In this connexion, but in relation to all
sacrificial and other rites, the meaning attached to the rites is
of more significance than a merely antiquarian interest in the
origin of the rites themselves.
It has already been said that all Israelite sacrifices cannot
be interpreted in terms of a single idea. Not all sacrifices, in-
deed, were animal sacrifices. Beside these there were the first
fruits and tithes. 1 These were believed to belong to God, and
were not thought of as man's gift to God. His bounty was their
source, and he was therefore entitled to them, so that it would
be sacrilege for a man to take them for himself. Again there were
meal offerings 2 and freewill offerings of substance 3 to be dis-
tinguished from animal sacrifices. Of the animal sacrifices some
were thought of as gifts to God, some as means of expiation,
and some as means of effecting communion with him. Prob-
ably the minhdh was a gift, though its precise purpose is not
clear. 4 It was originally an animal sacrifice, 5 but later it became
a meal offering, 8 but whether it was the expression of devotion
or the plea for some boon is uncertain. Some of the animal
sacrifices were wholly consumed on the altar, while others were
in part the perquisite of the priest and in part consumed on the
altar, and yet others were in part consumed by the offerer
himself.
Not all animal sacrifice was therefore related to sin and its
expiation, or the securing of some boon. Thankofferings were
rather the recognition that some boons had been received from
God. So, too, were the sacrifices in fulfilment of vows. 7 The
contracting of the vow was as voluntary as the bringing of a
thankoffering, but once the vow was made it laid an obligation
upon a man, to repudiate which would be a sin. But in itself it
was a contractual thankoffering. There were other sacrifices
more directly connected with sin. These included peace offer-
ings, sin offerings and guilt offerings, to use the normal English
terms in translations. In Lev. 5.1-9 the sin offering and the guilt
1 Cf. O. Eissfeldt, Erstlinge und Zehnten im Alien Testament, 1917.
2 On the meal offering, or min(tah, and its varieties, cf. G. F, Moore, in E.B., iv,
I907 cols. 4207 f.
8 Cf. II Kings 12.4 ff., 22.3 ff.
4 Cf. G. B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament, 1925, pp. 14 ff.
5 This term is used of AbePs sacrifice, Gen. 4.4.
Cf.Lev.2.
7 Cf. J. Pedersen, Israel III-IV, pp. 324 ff.
The Mature and of 95
offering appear to be equated, but probably they were origin-
ally distinct. 1 Both appear to have offered for more
specific sins than the peace offering. 2 TMs^ again 3 is of uncertain
meaning. It may have been offered to ensure the maintenance
of right relations with God or for the restoration of such
relations*
Beyond these individual sacrifices we find in the Law pro-
vision for the daily offerings on behalf of the community/ so
that right relations might be maintained between it and God.
Further, on the annual Day of Atonement^ whose ritual was
certainly of very ancient origin, sacrifice was offered for the sin
of the community during the year. 4 Here, however, the scape-
goat on which the sin of the people was put was driven out into
the wilderness, and not sacrificed in the shrine. 5 All of this
sufficiently indicates without exhausting the variety of sacrificial
rites and the variety of purposes for which they were offered.
More important is it to observe that no sacrifice is represented
in the teaching of the Bible as effecting salvation by the mere
performance of an outer rite. That many people thought of
them in such terms is unquestionable, and that they were so
thought of outside Israel is not to be denied. But the prophets
continually challenged the idea that by the offering of abundant
sacrifices the well-being of individual or community was
assured, and the Law no more than the prophets was content
with a merely formal act. Where sacrifice was offered for sin,
the Law demanded the confession of the sin and humble peni-
tence of spirit, and where the sin was against another man and
restitution could be made, it demanded restitution. 6 On the
Day of Atonement, the High Priest had to make confession for
the sin of the community. 7 He was the representative of the
community in confession as well as in the sacrifice itself, and
unless his confession genuinely represented the spirit of the
people the sacrifice was hollow and meaningless.
1 Cf. J. H. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship m the Old Testament, E. Tr. by J. Martin, 1863,
pp. 189 ff.; G. B. Gray, op. cit, pp. 57 ff.
2 In post-exilic times the peace offering included the thank offering, the vow, and
the freewill offering; cf. Lev. 7.1 1 ff.
8 Cf. Ex. 29.38 ff., Lev. 6.8 ff. (Heb. i ff), Num. 28.3 ff.
4 Gf. Lev. 1 6. Cf. Gray, op. cit., pp. 306 ff., Oesterley, op. cit., pp. 226 ff.; also
S. Landersdorfer, Studien &itn biblischen Versdhnungstag (A. A., x, i), 1924.
5 Cf. Gray, op. cit., pp. 306 ff., and Oesterley, op. cit., pp. 226 ff.
Cf. Lev. 5.5 f.; Num. 5.6 f.
7 Lev. 1 6.2 1.
6 The Faith of Israel
At the same time. It must be clearly recognized that sacrifice
rightly offered was believed to be charged with power. It was
not merely the symbol of the plea of the offerer, but charged
with power which derived from God and not from the offerer.
The latter laid his hands on the head of the animal, and so in
some way identified himself with it. 1 It was not merely that the
animal was a substitute for him, dying in his stead. In its death
he was conceived of as dying not physically, indeed, but
spiritually. The death of the animal vividly symbolized his
death to whatever stood between him and God, in the case of a
sacrifice for sin, or his surrender of himself to God in thankful-
ness and humility in other cases. But beyond that it was be-
lieved to be the medium of cleansing for him, or of the fellow-
ship with God which was opened up to him, or the assurance of
blessing with which he went away. Sacrifice thus both expressed
the spirit of the worshipper and did something for him; it bore
his spirit to God and bore to him from God that which he sought
and needed.
This means that while sacrifice was believed to be charged
with power, it was only when it was offered in genuine peni-
tence and submission. The prophetic denunciations were of
those who offered sacrifices which were in no sense the organ of
their spirit, and whose proud indifference to the will of God
was proclaimed in their Eves. On the other hand, it should not
be forgotten that where sacrifice was prescribed, penitence and
submission of spirit alone were not enough. That obedience is
better than sacrifice, and that obedience is expressed in life and
not alone in worship, was always recognized in the true stream
of the faith of Israel. 2 But it was not thought that a man could
save himself from his sin by his penitence and obedience. It was
God alone who could save him, and sacrifice was thought to be
the means of that divine salvation, when a man presented him-
self with his sacrifice.
Nevertheless, sacrifice was not the sole organ of the divine
power or of man's approach to God. For many sins no sacrifice
was prescribed, but the door to the divine forgiveness was not
necessarily closed. Reference has already been made to David's
response in penitence to Nathan's rebuke. Thereafter we read
1 Lev. 1.4, 3.2, 8, 13, 4.4, 15, 24, 29, 33, 8.14, 18, 22, 16.21; cf. Ex. 29.10, 15, 19.
* Cf. I Sam. 15.22; Hos. 6.6, Prov. 15.8, Eccl. 5.1.
The and Meed of 97
that Nathan said: 'Yahweh also hath put away thy sin/ 1 No
sacrifice could be offered* for none was prescribed in the Law;
yet the sin was cleansed. It was not cleansed by the king's
penitence, but by the act of God in response to Ms penitence.
Nor did the forgiveness of David's sin dispense with the
punishment. In the faith of Israel forgiveness is the cleansing
from the sin, not the avoidance of punishment. In the case of
David the punishment took the form of the death of Bath-
sheba's child, 2 but this was thought of as the punishment of
the king. So again, when Ahab humbled himself before God
after Elijah had rebuked him for the death of Naboth, his
repentance was accepted by God but punishment was not
avoided. 3 In this case the penalty for the sin was reaped in the
days of his son. With our more individualistic outlook we are
inclined to see some injustice here, though experience shows
that children today may pay the price for the sins of their
parents. But in Israel there was a stronger feeling of the
solidarity of the family and the nation, and no thought of in-
justice would arise. More important is the recognition that even
the divine forgiveness does not cancel all the effects of the sin,
and that the only true penitence is a genuine horror of the sin,
and not a selfish desire to avoid its consequences.
It is therefore clear that salvation from sin in the thought of
the Old Testament is something more inclusive than sacrifice,
though that belongs to it. Salvation is always the act of God,
and it restores the relation between man and God which the
sin has broken. It may be effected through sacrifices or without
sacrifice. On the other hand all sacrifice is not designed to
effect salvation from sin. Neither term is tied exclusively to the
other. Moreover, the most significant word on sacrifice found
in the Old Testament does not stand in the Law, and does not
speak of a victim offered on the altar. It is in the prophetic
canon that we read of the death of the Suffering Servant, 4
whose death was a sin offering for many, and wider in efficacy
than any sacrifice offered in the Temple. This was not the death
of an animal without blemish, offered involuntarily, but the
willing sacrifice of one who was without moral stain. 5 The
Temple sacrifices could be effective for the individual, or for the
community of Israel, but the death of the Servant was described
l IISam. 12.13. 2 IISam. 12.14. *IKings2i.29. 4 Isa.53.8
8 The Faith of Israel
as effective for the nations. It was the people of the nations who
were depicted as confessing their sins as they looked upon him,
and acknowledging that the chastisement that should have been
theirs was borne by him. 1 Moreover, his death was not effective
for them until they brought to it that spirit of humble confession
which the Law demanded with its sacrifices. Again it was not
their penitence and surrender which effected their salvation. It
was the Lord who laid on the Servant the iniquity of men in the
moment of their confession, and who made his death a sin
offering for their salvation. 2
There are many levels in the Old Testament, but certain
constants are found at all levels. Salvation from the Egyptian
bondage or from neighbouring foes is not on the same level as
salvation from sin, and salvation from unwitting sin is not on
the same level as salvation from sins of the spirit. Yet at all
levels salvation was perceived to be God's act. Its condition is
always presented as humble surrender and faith, with repen-
tance where there had been sin. Throughout the Old Testament
man is thought of as the creature of God, made for his fellow-
ship and service, and able to enjoy the fellowship only so long
as he continues in the service. Throughout the Old Testament
man's exercise of his freedom to sin is brought before us. More-
over sin is everywhere something which not alone offends God
but injures man and robs him of the resources in God's fellow-
ship which God designed for him. Throughout the Old Testa-
ment the love of God is presented. For though human sin is an
offence to him, his eager yearning for the restoration of fellow-
ship is seen in his discipline and Ms warning, and in his ready
response to man's desire for the restoration of fellowship by the
exercise of his divine power to remove the barrier which man
had erected. What the fruit of fellowship means in the life that
is conformed to the will of God we shall consider in a later
lecture.
1 Isa. 53.4 f. * Isa. 53.6, 10.
IV
INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNITY 2
IN all that has so far been said about man in the thought of
Israel, one important question has been left without mention.
This is the relation of the individual to society. 2 Is man con-
ceived of merely as a fragment of the community, borne along
in its life and involved in the vicissitudes of its fortunes, or is he
conceived of as an individual, responsible to God for his own
life ? It is sometimes suggested that Jeremiah and Ezekiel dis-
covered the individual, and that before their time man was
thought of in terms of the society to which he belonged. 3 This
is a gross exaggeration. It is true that these prophets stressed
individual responsibility, but they were not the first to recognize
the importance and the worth of the individual. It is also true
that there was a much more vivid sense of the solidarity of a
1 This lecture has already appeared, by permission of Union Theological Seminary,
Richmond, and the publishers of the present book, in Theology Today, xii, 1955-6,
pp. 491 ff. Some modifications have been made in the text, and fuller references to
other literature are given here.
8 On the subject of this lecture cf. F. Spadafora, ColUttivismo e indimdualismo ml
Vecchio Testamento, 1953; also M, Lohr, Sozialismus und Individualismus im Alien.
Testament (B.Z.A.W., No. 10), 1906, H. Gunkel, in R.G.G., ist ed., iii, 1912, pp.
493 ff-, A Gausse, Du Groups ethnique d la communaute' religieuse, 1937, J. Hempel,
Das Ethos des Alien Testaments (B.Z.A.W.,No. 67), 1938, pp. 32 ff., J. de Fraine,
Biblica, xxxiii, 1952, pp. 324 ft, 445 ff., and G. E. Wright, The Biblical Doctrine
of Man in Society, 1954.
8 Gf. C. H. Patterson, The Philosophy of the Old Testament, 1953, p. 239, where it is
roundly stated that in the mind of the prophets before Jeremiah the idea did not
occur 'that Yahweh held individuals responsible for their own deeds'. With this
cf. B. M. Pickering, in Gore's New Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1928, pp. 487
Oesterley and Robinson, while saying (Hebrew Religion, 2nd ed., p. 264} that
Jeremiah 'is in a very real sense the father of individualism in religion* (cf. pp.
292 f., where it is said that Jeremiah 'was the first to teach that man, the indivi-
dual, not the nation, was the unit') were careful to recognize that before Jere-
miah the individual had standing in the political and religious life of ancient
Israel (p. 263). Gf. A. Causse, op. cit., p. 1 1 1, where it is said that with Jeremiah
Tindividu a trouv< sa place et sa dignite, et c'est 1'homme en tant qu'homme qui
est le sujet de la religion". A. Lods put the beginning of individualism back to die
time of Isaiah, and maintained that in gathering round him his disciples to form
the nucleus of the 'converted remnant* he 'initiated the religious emancipation
of the individual* (The Prophets and the Rise of Judaism, E. Tr. by S. H. Hooke,
*937 ? IQ 2)' Cf. also J. R. Slater, The Biblical World, xiv, 1899, pp. 172 ff.
99
1 00 The Faith of Israel
man with Ms fellows than has been common In the modem
world until the last generation, when in some societies the
individual has been completely submerged in society. But in no
period of the life of Israel do we find extreme collectivism or
extreme individualism, but a combination of both. 1 Some
writers or some passages emphasize the one side of this dual
nature of man more than the other, but both sides belong to
the wholeness of biblical thought in all periods. 2
There was individual piety and sin, and individual reward
and punishment, long before the days of Jeremiah. 3 The story
of Achan is the stock illustration of the sense of the solidarity of
the community, and is often given an undue prominence in the
study of Israelite thought. When Achan sinned by retaining for
his own use some of the enemy treasure that should have been
destroyed in accordance with the sacred ban that had been put
on everything that belonged to the enemy, 4 the whole com-
munity suffered until Achan and his family had been com-
pletely wiped out. 5 His sin was not his private affair alone. It
came not alone between him and God, but between the entire
community and God. In a special sense it involved his whole
family, since the family was conceived of as an extension of the
personality of its head, 6 and so not alone Achan but his family
with him had to be destroyed to rid the community of the taint
that was upon it. Interwoven in this story are many ideas and
practices which we should not share. For the moment this does
not concern us, since all that we are concerned with is the faith
of Israel, and the idea inherent in this story that individual and
1 Cf. J. Hempel, op. cit., pp. 41 ff., and Gott und Mensch im Alien Testament
B.W.A.N.T., iii, 2), and ed., 1936, p. 192; O. S. Rankin, Israel's Wisdom Litera-
tere, 1936, pp. 53 ff. A, Weiser (Jeremia (A.T.D.), H, 1955, p. 293 n.), says:
*Dass der Gedanke der personlichen Verantwortung schon immer im altesta-
mentlichen Ethos neben dem der solidarischen Vergeltung seine Bedeutung
gehabt hat, braucht wohl kaum betont zu warden 1 .
8 Cf. L G. Matthews, The Religious Pilgrimage of Israel, 1947, p. 14: 'Individualism
to a marked degree, paradoxical though it seems, went hand in hand with
solidarity.' On p. 164, however, he speaks of the gradual emergence of the
individual 'under military achievement, the development of industry, and the
growth of society and government*, and says it is fitting that Jeremiah should be
called the father of individualism.
* Gf. J. de Frame, loc. cit., pp. 334 ff.
4 On the ban cf. above, p. 19.
Josh. 7.1 ff.
9 Cf. J. Pedersen, Israel /-//, pp. 46 ff., esp. p. 63 : 'Round the man the house groups
itself, forming a psychic community, which is stamped by him. Wives, chSdren,
slaves, property are entirely merged in this unity.*
Individual 101
community formed a single unit. The same idea may be In
the story of David's sin in numbering the people, which led to
a plague upon the whole nation* with great loss of life. 1
A moment's reflection will show that this was not the whole
of the teaching found in the Old Testament before the time of
Jeremiah and Ezekiel 2 In a sinful world Enoch walked with
God in individual piety, until God took him. 1 When human
sin cried out and God sent the waters of the flood, Noah was
saved from the general disaster. 4 Abraham stands out for the
nobility of his individual character. If it be said that these all
belong to the legendary past, they none the less testify to the
recognition of the importance of the worth of individuals, and
of the reality of an individual relationship to God. Moreover,
humble individuals like Hannah, who scarcely belongs to the
legendary past, could bring their pleas to God and find them
answered. 6 For he was not a god who had regard to men only
in the mass. 6 Every true prophet was an individual who felt
that the hand of God was upon him and that he was called to
an individuality of service. The God who could speak to Moses
in the burning bush, 7 to Samuel as he kept watch by the Ark, 8
to Amos as he pursued his humble avocation, and to Isaiah
amid all the Temple throng, 1 was not a God who was indifferent
to the individual. Further, none of the prophets could be
accused of forgetting the individual in their concern for society.
When David sinned with Bathsheba and against Uriah, it was
to David as an individual sinner that Nathan went. 11 He did
not wait until divine sanctions against the community, as in
the affair of Achan, involved society in the effects of David's
sin. When Jezebel invaded the private rights of Naboth and had
him judicially murdered, Elijah took up the cause of Naboth in
the name of the Lord. 12 When the eighth and seventh century
1 II Sam. 24.1 ff.
* Gf. H. Gunkel, in R.G.G., loc. cit., col. 495: Trotzdem wiirde die Annahme,
dass das Individuum in der Religion des Alten Israel iiberhaupt keine Beziehung
gehabt hat, ein starker Irrtum sein*; similarly W. Eidbrodt, in Festschrift Otto
Procksch, 1934, p. 47: *Es war freilich ein starkes Missverstehen der israelitischen
Anschauung vom Bundesgott, wenn man biswcilen gemcint hat, von einera
personlichen Vertrauen auf Jahve konne beim einzelnen Israeliten bis auf die
Zeit des Prophetismus herab keine Rede sein.'
8 Gen. 5.24. 4 Gen. 6 ff. 5 i Sam. i.io ff.
e A. Lods (op. cit., p. 169) recognizes that there had been individualism in prayer
long before the time of Jeremiah.
7 Ex. 3.4 ff. * I Sam. 3.4 ff. 9 Amos 7.15.
10 Isa. 6.7 ff. "II Sam. 12.1 ff. ia I Kings 21.17 ff.
102 The Faith of Israel
prophets saw Individual men and women under the harrow,
suffering from the selfish greed and the unscrupulous exercise of
power on the part of the mighty, it was as individuals that they
saw them, and with hot indignation they denounced the
wrong-doers. It is true that all these things were in their eyes
not simply individual matters, but matters that concerned the
whole community and its relations with God. They were not
doctrinaire individualists; but neither were they doctrinaire
collectivists, who were indifferent to the individual save as a
fragment of the community. They believed that the life of every
individual concerned the whole community, but they never-
theless saw the individual as an individual, and denounced the
sins of individuals as well as of society, and proclaimed the
wrongs suffered by individuals.
That they were also concerned for the collective sins of
society and for the collective well-being of society should be
remembered. There was a balance and a wholeness in their
thought that is often lacking in ours. Too often in our thought
sin is wholly an individual thing, and we forget that the com-
munity has a life and a character and a will, and that it may
defy the will of God and therefore sin, to its own grave hurt and
the hurt of all its members. The religious leaders of Israel never
forgot that. They recognized that man has sociality as well as
individuality, and that the community as well as the individual
may have relations with God. The Old Testament knows noth-
ing of the idea that you cannot indict a nation. Frequently a
whole people is indicted. The opening chapters of the book of
Amos contain a series of national indictments, in which the
neighbouring peoples are successively denounced because they
have been guilty of sinning against the principles of humanity,
and therefore against the law of God. In the prophetic collec-
tions associated with the names of Isaiah, Jeremiah and
Ezekiel, there are many oracles directed against foreign
peoples. 1 Moreover, all the great pre-exilic prophets pronounce
judgement on their own people as a whole, and not merely on
the rulers or on guilty individuals. Similarly we find that in the
sacrificial law, provision is made for daily sacrifices on behalf
of the community, and for the annual sacrifice of the Day of
Atonement for the sins of the community during the preceding
1 Cf. Jsa. 13 ff. ; Jer. 46 ff.; Ezek. 25 ff.
and 1 03
year. Neither the Law nor the prophets regarded as
merely a man's private traffic with God 5 but which
was of social and of individual concern. It should not, however,
be forgotten that in no period of Israel's history was sacrifice
conceived of simply as a social rite. There were always indivi-
dual offerings as well as corporate, and individual thanks-
givings and pleas could always be brought to God* 1
It is to be noted that the biblical teaching of the grace of
God is such that when a nation is indicted, something more is
meant than that the balance of the life of the community is
alienated from God. The Bible teaches that for the sake of a
small minority, which is as the salt of society,, the whole com-
munity may be spared. Sodom might have been spared for but
a handful of righteous men, 2 and in the thought of the Rem-
nant, which runs through so much of the Old Testament, we
have further illustration of the same principle. 3 A society that is
rotten through and through may bring disaster upon itself, lest
its corrupting influence spread more widely. But where there is
hope of reform the divine mercy persists, and even where there
is no hope for the society as a whole, a Remnant may be spared,
either for its own sake 4 or for the sake of those who will come
after. 5 Yet, as will be seen, there is no biblical doctrine of the
rigid equation of desert and fortune, and it is recognized that
frequently the righteous are involved in the disasters the un-
righteous bring upon the community to which they belong.
Righteous and unrighteous are members of a common society,
and are alike involved in its experience. For the sin of society,
like the sin of individuals, is sin against God and against its
1 Cf. The Rediscovery of the Old Testament , pp. 151 , (American edition, pp. 214 ).
* Gen. 18.16 ff.
8 On the Remnant cf. S. Garofalo, La Nozione profetica del 'Resto d J lsraeU\ 1942,
H. Dittmann, T.S.K., Ixxvii, 1914, pp. 603 ff., R. de Vaux, R.B., xlii, 1933, pp.
526 ff., W. E. Miiller, Die Vorstelltmg vom Rest im Alien Testament, 1939, V.
Herntrich, in Th.W.B., iv, 1942, pp. 200 ff., E. W. Heaton, J.T.S., N.S. iii,
1952, pp. 27 ff.; also S. Mowinckel, Profeten jfesaja, 1925, pp. 66 ff., and H.
Gressmann, Der Ursprwg der israelitisch-jUdischen JEschatologie, 1905, pp. 229 ff.
4 Cf. Noah in the time of the flood, or the seven thousand who had not bowed the
kneel to Baal in the time of Elijah (I Kings 19.18). Gf. also Amos. 5.15; Zeph.
2.3. Frequently the Remnant is thought of as justifying its survival by its loyalty
after it has been spared; cf. Isa. 4.3, 10.20 ff., 28.5.
6 Cf. Amos 3.12, 4.1, and perhaps Isa. 1.9. In none of these passages is there any
suggestion that the Remnant was spared because it deserved to be, and in the
second of them it is explicitly stated that it did not. Cf. also N. K. Gottwald,
Studies in the Book of Lamentations, 1954, p. 99, where the thought of this book is
expressed in terms of the divine mercy to an undeserving Remnant.
104 The
as individuals, as well as against Its own corporate
body-
Frequently the Injustice that is in the
world indict God for it, as though he ought to see to it that
every man*s fortune corresponded precisely to Ms desert. It is
particularly when they see individuals involved in the conse-
quences of national policies, for which they cannot be held
responsible, that they raise this cry. But their cry is wrongly
directed. God is not responsible for the acts of men or of nations.
He has given man freedom and for Ms exercise of that freedom
man is alone responsible. When Cain murdered Abel, 1 the act was
his and not God's. It is true that God created man capable of
committing murder and other evils. But if he had not been so
capable, he would not have been man. Similarly, when a
nation pursues a policy wMch leads to dire disaster, and scenes
of horror are witnessed, the responsibility is upon the nation
and not upon God. It is vain to cry out against God when the
fruits of human sin are reaped. That there is injustice in the
world is manifestly true, and is abundantly recognized in the
Old Testament. But that is because sin is in the world, and sin
ever works injustice. The prophets were tireless in warning men
of the fruits of the follies they loved, both the follies in their
individual lives and the follies in the life of the state. They called
on men to renounce the evil in their hearts, to change their
ways, that they might avoid the grievous ills into wMch they
were plunging. They hated injustice, and therefore they hated
sin, and instead of sitting idly in judgement on God they rose
to fight against the sin, and to warn men of its hateful nature.
The Bible is under no illusions as to the character of sin,
whether individual or corporate, and it finds it the deadliest
foe of God and man.
We may now observe that while it is true that Jeremiah and
Ezekiel emphasized some aspects of individualism, and parti-
cularly individual responsibility, tMs is not the whole of their
teacMng. They lived in days when men blamed their fathers
for the misfortunes wMch came upon the land, and excused
themselves from any share of the responsibility by saying 'The
fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set
on edge.' 2 To them came Jeremiah enunciating the doctrine
1 Gen. 4.8. 8 Jer. 31.29, Ezek. 18.2.
and 1 05
'Every one shall die for his OWE iniquity* ; l later we the
same teaching on the lips of EzekicL 1 To prophets the
responsibility was not to be put on an impersonal community,
and still less on the community of a former generation. Every
individual had Ms share of responsibility for the life of the com*
munity. He was not merely a fragment of the corporate whole;
he was a responsible individual. Yet let it not be forgotten that
this emphasis of the teaching of Jeremiah and Ezekiel was a
corrective to the false opposite emphasis of their day. 8 Jeremiah
did not render obsolete aU the thought of man as a member of
society, and we should never father on to Mm a mere indivi-
dualism, as though he regarded men as a tray of sands with no
cohesion, and simply a collection of units. 4 For Jeremiah warned
men of the sorrows their cMldren should know as the fruit of
their own policies. It is therefore clear that his doctrine of
individualism was but one side of the truth, and not the whole
truth. 5 Here, as so commonly, truth is to be found in the tension
between two apparently opposed principles. In declaring that
while their fathers' sins had not brought their misfortunes,
their sins would bring misfortunes upon their children, 6 Jere-
miah was certainly not teacMng a consistent doctrine of the
rigid equation of desert and fortune. Moreover, the New
Covenant of wMch he prophesied, wMle it was to be written
on men's hearts, and thus to be an individual covenant, was at
the same time a covenant with the house of Israel, and thus a
ijer. 31.30.
* E2ek. 18.4. A. S. Peake (The Problem of Suffering in the Old Testament, 1904, p. 24)
maintains that this word of EzekieFs c created a revolution in religious thought and
life'.
8 Gf. A. M&Iebielle, in S.D.B., Hi, 1938, col. 86: 'L'individu n'est pas dans la
socit comme une roue dans un engrenage. II est libre, il peut, il dgit par ses
bonnes ceuvres echapper a la responsabiHt6 du mal. Si le prophete Ezechiel a
preche 1 cette libert et ce devoir avec plus de force que ses pr&Iecesseurs, c'est
que les circonstances rendaieat cet enseignement a la fois plus necessaire et plus
opportun*.
4 Cf. Spadafora, Collettivismo e Individualism), p. 398: 'In Geremia ed in Ezechiele,
come in tutto el Vecchio Testamento, abbiamo soltanto la coesistenza del
collettivismo e dell *individualismo*. J. Skinner (Prophecy and Religion, p. 152)
says : 'With all this, it is doubtful if Jeremiah's view of sin is strictly individualistic.
It makes a long advance in that direction; but it is not so clear that the goal is
reached.'
8 This appears to be forgotten by A. Gausse, op. cit., pp. 1 10 , where he says that
in the teaching of Jeremiah children would no more suffer for the sins of their
parents, and that therefore this was the decisive moment in the evolution of
religion when the individual found his place.
'Jer. 16.3 f.
1 06 The of
one. 1 An arid individualism can no more satisfy the
of the tcacMiig of the Old Testament than an arid
colectivism. Any emphasis on the one to the exclusion of the
other in any period is a misrepresentation of the faith of Israel.
A single* wordj or a single incident, may bring out one side
of the truth more than the other, but both sides must be
remembered in any study of the thought and teaching of the
Bible.
Reference has been made to the story of Achan, where the
whole people was involved in disaster through the sin of one
man. In that story there is a profound spiritual message, though
its form embodies the long outgrown idea of wholesale massacre,
to which both Israel and her neighbours sometimes resorted as a
religious act. 2 Achan had retained some of the material spoil
because his selfishness of spirit triumphed over his public duty,
and by every standard he was to be condemned, as he doubtless
was condemned by Ms own conscience. But God was so offended
by Achan's act that he withdrew his aid from the entire people,
until the offender was cut off with his entire family. In this story
there is not a little that is offensive to us, and that belongs to the
ideas of the time. That Achan's family should be destroyed with
him is offensive to us, but would not be so to the men of his
time, though it stands condemned within the pages of the Old
Testament itself. For in Deut. 24.16 we read 'Fathers shall not
be put to death for their children, neither shall children be put
to death for their fathers: every man shall be put to death for
Ms own sin. 5 Nevertheless, this story contains a sound warning
that one individual's failure of duty may involve a whole com-
munity in disaster and suffering, and that a man's private sin
is never simply Ms own private affair. As an individual he is
responsible for Ms act; yet others are inevitably involved in Ms
act.
That a single individual may involve a whole community in
disaster is amply attested by history. It takes but one traitor to
betray an army or a nation, and a single careless deed may
expose large numbers of people to danger. Yet in all such cases
as we recognize there is a direct causal chain between the
individual failure and the public consequences, whereas in the
1 Jer. 31.31 ff. On the authenticity of this passage cf. above, p. 36.
* See above, p. 19,
and 1 07
case of Achan no causal chain can be demonstrated Ms
sin and the national impotence that followed It. Often in the
world of the spirit causal chains cannot be demomtrated a
yet they exist. The subtle and imperceptible influence of one
spirit upon another is real, though hard to and an evil
man is a social liability. Even if Achan's sin had not been dis-
covered, he would still have been a social liability, a centre of
moral disease within the life of the community. If there is
disease in the body at any point, it is as real a menace to the
body before its nature and location are discovered by a doctor
as it is after diagnosis. So the sinner, even though his sin is con-
cealed, is a menace, in the measure of his sin, to the welfare of
the community. When Achan's sin was known he was destroyed,
less to punish him than as an act of social hygiene, to cleanse the
community of his stain.
Where the individual is a representative and leader of the
community, it is less surprising that his act should affect the
welfare of the whole society, and that if he is evil he should be a
public liability. The action of a leader may determine the
policy of the state and involve the people in disaster or blessing.
The folly of Rehoboam, while in no sense the only cause of the
disruption, was its occasion, by its provocation of the outbreak
which effected it. 1 The act of David in numbering the people
was followed by the plague, 2 and while here once more there
was no direct chain of causal connexion, it was believed that
the one was the consequence of the other. Here again there is an
element of enduring validity in the story. The private sin of a
leader necessarily comes between him and God, and therefore
makes him insensitive to the guidance of God, without which
there can be no true well-being. If the fundamental teaching of
the Bible is true, that there can be no real well-being for men,
either as individuals or collectively, save in the will of God, then
it is in the highest degree important that the leaders of men
should do his will. Yet they who repudiate the fellowship of
God cannot know his guidance, and if they repudiate Ms will
in their private lives, they cannot with sincerity seek to know
and do his will in their public acts.
The king's act is therefore never without significance for the
nation. His private life may affect his public act; and his public
1 1 Kings 12.1 ff. * II Sam. 24.1 ff.
i oS The of
act is not merely Ms but the community's, since he is its repre-
sentative. 1 It is frequently said in the Bible that Jeroboam I not
only sinned but made Israel to sin, and by this is meant that he
not only led them in the way of evil, but that his act as the repre-
sentative of the nation was itself an act of corporate sin, whose
consequences went on after he himself had died. The prophets
denounced both the political and the religious leaders of the
nation precisely because their acts were always more than their
own. Nevertheless, it is not to be supposed that only the leadera
are important. Everyone, whether leader or common man, may
contribute something to the strength of the life of the com-
munity, or may diminish it. Where there runs through a people
indifference to the will of God, it will have leaders who will
lead it in the way that is alien to Ms will ; for only in such a way
will they be content to follow. If they had other leaders, the
spirit of the community would nullify their leadership. Jere-
miah declared that though Moses or Samuel were to act as
intercessor for the people of his day, the intercession would be
unavailing, since the nation was so corrupt. 2 Neither of these
great men would be really representative of the nation that
Jeremiah knew. Wise leaders must be supported by the spirit
of the communities they lead. On the other hand, unwise
leaders, whose acts may compromise and menace the com-
munities they lead, are not to be endured patiently with a dis-
claimer of responsibility for their acts. Without any thought of the
machinery of modem democracy, the prophets were sure that
a people which walked in the way of God would find all its
interests watched by God, who would raise up for it leaders
attuned to his spirit. Thus Jeremiah said 'Return, apostate
children, saith Yahweh . . . And I will give you shepherds
after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and
understanding.' 8 When we view the thought of the Old Testa-
ment as a whole, therefore, we see that the corporate spirit of
society, and the individual spirit of the leader or the common
man, are alike important. They may be a source of strength to
1 Cf. J. Pedersen, Israel ///-IF, 1940, p. 82 : 'The people share in the responsibility
of the king and must take the consequences of his action, even if they have not
taken part in it.'
8 Jer. 15.1. On the prophet as intercessor cf. F. Hesse, Die Fftrbitte im Alien Testa-
ment, 1949, pp. 39 ff.j also N.Johansson, Parakletoi, 1940, pp. 3 ff.
8 Jer. 3.14 f.
and 109
the community If directed by the spirit of God; they may be a
source of weakness If they are marred by sin. For every
individual, whether great or small, is a member of the corporate
society, carried in the current of its life and bringing Ms con-
tribution to that current. He cannot live to himself alone. For
his life belongs to all, and the life of all around Mm belongs to
him.
It has been said that there is no biblical doctrine of the rigid
equation of desert and fortune. The book of Deuteronomy and
the writings of the Deuteronomic school are governed by the
theory of such an equation in the experience of the nation*
Deuteronomy promises that so long as Israel is obedient to the
will of God it will prosper in all its life, while when it is dis-
obedient it will suffer natural calamities and grievous ills at the
hands of foes. 1 The book of Judges represents history in the
form of alternation between foreign oppression as the result of
religious disloyalty and deliverance through a God-given
leader when repentance brings men back to God. The prophets
of the pre-exilic period promised disaster to generations that
were not walking in the way of God. All of this presupposes
that desert and fortune, at least on the national scale, are linked
together. Broadly speaking there is truth in this, though it is
not the whole truth. Still less is it the whole truth, when it is
individualized and used as a basis for the doctrine that every
man gets precisely what he deserves. With Jeremiah, as we have
seen, it was not presented as the whole truth, but balanced by
other aspects of truth.
There are passages in the Old Testament which, taken by
themselves, imply that the good man is assured of good fortune
and the wicked man is certain to run into trouble. The opening
psalm of the Psalter enunciates this doctrine, and promises that
the man who finds his delight in the law of the Lord will dis-
cover that 'whatever he does will prosper', while the wicked
will be like the chaff which the wind drives away* and experi-
ence will show that 'the way of the wicked will perish'. Such a
thought is found in not a few passages in the Psalter. 'Blessed
is the man who fears Yahweh . . . Wealth and riches are in
his house ... He shall never be moved ... He shall not be
afraid of evil tidings . . . His horn shall be exalted with
*Deut. 28.1 ff.
1 1 o The of
honour/ 1 Or 'Blessed is every one who fears Yahweh,
who walks In his ways. For thou shalt eat what thy hands earn;
Happy shalt thou be, and It shall be wcH with thcc. Thy wife
be as a fruitful vine, within thy house: Thy children like
young olive shoots, around thy table.* 2 A more familiar psalm
says 'Fear Yahweh, ye his saints: For there is no want to those
who fear him. The young lions have need and suffer hunger:
But they who seek Yahweh shall not be in need of any good
thing/ 8 In the book of Proverbs we find the same sentiments.
8 Honour Yahweh with thy wealth, And with the first fruits of all
thine increase: So shall thy barns be filled with plenty. And
thy vats shall overflow with new wine.' 4 Or again, 'Happy is the
man who finds wisdom. And the man who gets understanding
. . Length of days is in her right hand; In her left hand are
riches and honour/ 6 When Solomon went to Bethel and saw
God in Ms vision and chose wisdom as the supremely desirable
gift, we read that God said to him that riches and honour and
long life should also be his. 6 All this, taken by itself, would seem
to support the view that prosperity is regarded as the supreme
blessing in the Old Testament, 7 and that piety was believed to
be the sure way of finding it.
In contrast to this is sometimes set the New Testament, 8
where we read 'Blessed are ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of
God. Blessed are ye who hunger now: for ye shall be filled.
Blessed are ye who weep now: for ye shall laugh.' 9 Such a con-
trast is quite unfair, as is the one-sided representation of the
teaching of the Old Testament that singles out such passages
as have just been quoted to the ignoring of much else. Many
examples of undeserved suffering and oppression have already
been given. Beyond these we have the frequent complaints of
the psalmists that they are in trouble, from which they beseech
God to deliver them, and frequent reflections on the prosperity
of the wicked. Sometimes the psalmist cheers himself with the
thought that that prosperity is insecure, while for him there will
1 Ps. iia.i, 3, 6, 7, 9. a Ps. 128.1 ff. Ps. 34.9 f. (Heb. 10 f.).
4 Prov. 3,9 5 Prov. 3.13, 16. * I Kings 3.13.
7 On the Old Testament conception of blessing cf. J. Pedersen, Israel /-//, pp.
182 ff.
8 Cf. Francis Bacon, Essay on Adversity : 'Prosperity is the blessing of the Old
Testament, adversity is the blessing of the New.*
9 Luke 6.20 f.
and I i i
be deliverance. But even so there is the clear
there is no simple equation between merit lot.
That virtue leads to well-being is to be one
side of the truth, whether on the individual or on the
scale; but it is not the whole of the truth. In a world in
there was no sin and no disobedience to God, it was
that this would be the whole of the truth, and hence the
Golden Age is depicted in terms of perfect and
economic bliss. 1 But because here and now there is sin, and
because men and nations are involved in the sin of othere, the
fruits of virtue may not always be reaped. Only the fool is led
to conclude from this that virtue does not matter, since its fruits
may not be reaped. The man who plants a fruit tree may not
gather the fruit. The frosts may carry off the blossom or the
storms the fruit and the tree yield no harvest, since the harvest
depends not merely on the nature and quality of the tree but
on other factors. But no wise man would conclude that the
nature and quality of the tree were of no moment.
The story of Joseph is of high value as showing that in quite
early times there was the perception that the real reward of
virtue was not in prosperity or in adversity, but was quite
other. It is true that Joseph comes ultimately to riches and
honour, but whether in his adversity or in his prosperity* he has
God, and therefore his real well-being is secure. This thought
we find expressed in some of the proverbs. 'Better is a little with
righteousness Than great revenues with injustice.* 2 'How much
better is it to get wisdom than gold! To get understanding is
more to be desired than silver.' s 'Better is the poor man who
walks in his integrity, Than he who is perverse in his ways,
though he be rich.' 4 The author of Ps. 73 begins by envying the
wicked, but ends by realizing that in his own misfortune he is
far better off than they, because while they have their riches and
ease he has God. 'Nevertheless I am continually with tfaee:
Thou dost hold my right hand.' 6 It is this aspect of the teaching
of the Old Testament, which is found alongside the other, and
that not merely in a single period, which should always be
remembered to balance the other, and which makes it quite
misleading to suggest that in the faith of Israel a man's lot, or a
1 See below, pp. 183, 190 f. * Prov. 16.8. a Prov. 16.16.
* Prov. 28.6. 5 Ps. 73.23.
112 The of Israel
nation's lot, was believed to be strictly proportioned to his or its
merit.
Between a doctrine of such an equation of desert and fortune
on the national and on the individual scale there must inevit-
ably be a tendon. For when the folly of a king or people brings
the disaster of war upon a community, its weight falls on good
and bad alike, and all are involved in the common suffering.
Similarly the sin of an individual may bring suffering on others,
sometimes on the victims of his acts, as the sin of Gain brought
suffering on Abel, 1 or the sin of David on Uriah, 2 and sometimes
on Ms family, who are involved in the sorrow and shame he
may bring upon himself. 3 When either side of the truth is
pressed to the exclusion of the other, problems arise. In the days
of Jeremiah men were excusing themselves of any share of the
responsibility for their misfortunes; in the days when the book
of Job was written, there were circles that were obsessed with a
hard individualism, and that believed that precise justice was
invariably reflected in individual fortune. Neither theory can
fit all the facts of experience. Habakkuk is troubled with the
problem of the wicked swallowing up one more righteous than
himself, 4 and Jeremiah 5 and some of the psalmists were
puzzled by the prosperity of the wicked and the adversity of
the righteous.
The question of man's sociality is complicated further by the
bond which unites him to the generations of the past and of the
future. He is not merely a member of contemporary society. He
belongs to the past and to the future. While Jeremiah rebuked
his fellows for blaming their fathers for their misfortunes, the
Bible teaches that there are occasions on which one generation
sins and the next generation pays the price. When Ahab re-
pented on hearing the rebuke of Elijah, the word of the Lord
came to Elijah, saying 'Seest thou how Ahab has humbled
himself before me? because he has humbled himself before me,
I will not bring the evil in his days; but in his son's days will I
bring this evil upon his house.'* When Isaiah came to Hezekiah
to predict that because he had opened his treasuries to the
messengers of Merodach-baladan, his treasures should one day
be carried off to Babylon, and his descendants be eunuchs in the
1 Gen. 4.8. fl II Sam. 11.6 ff.
a Cf. The Rediscovery of the Old Testament, p. 149 (American edition, p. an).
* Hab. 1.13 ff. * Jer. 12.1 ff. I Kings 21.29.
and 1 1 3
palace of the Babylonian king* Hezekiah *Good is the
word of Yahweh which thou hast spoken ... Is it not so, if
peace and stability 1 shall be in my days ?* f Here experience
with the Bible. It often happens that the evils of one generation
take time to bring forth their fruits, and a later generation must
pay the price of the mistakes of their fathers. Moreover, the
Decalogue, in the expanded form it now has in both Exodus
and Deuteronomy, declares that God visits the sins of fathers
upon the children to the third and fourth generation. 8 To many
modem minds this appears to be unjust^ though it is undeniable
that in experience children are involved in the fruits of their
parents* lives. If we consider man merely as an individual it may
seem unjust; but if we realize that he belongs to the continuous
stream of the generations and to the society of which he is a
member, it is not. He is bom into an ever changing society and
family, which yet has a continuity within its change that makes
it a unity from moment to moment and from generation to
generation. He is the heir of the past and a fragment of the
society of the present. While he is liable to suffer for the
common sins, or for the sins of other individuals, he also receives
a rich inheritance from those who have gone before and from
his contemporaries, and from both he may receive great bless-
ings. If he shares ills he has done nothing to deserve, he also
receives blessings he has not merited. If he wishes to cry out
against God because of the debits of this balance, he rarely
complains of the far greater credits. 4 An arid individualism can
neither justify the vast and beneficent heritage from the past
which comes to every man nor begin to understand the rich-
ness and complexity of the divine justice. Nevertheless we are
individuals, with an individual responsibility. We may raise or
lower the spiritual quality of the society of which we form a
1 R.V. here has 'peace and truth*, but in Jer. 14.13, where the same terms appear,
but in a genitive relation, we find the rendering 'assured peace', instead of 'peace
of truth*. The word * e metk, which is commonly rendered 'truth* comes from the
root 'aman, which means *to be faithful*, or 'reliable* (see above, pp. 66 f,). It is
fundamentally something which can be relied on, and so 'stability or 'security*
(so R.S.V.) is the most suitable rendering here. Similarly in Isa. 42.3, where R.V.
has 'judgement in truth', the meaning is more probably 'enduring justice* (where
'justice* means both the principles of true religion and their outcome in perfect
righteousness; see below, p. 147 n-4), as is seen by G. W. Wade, Isaiah (West.
C.), 1911, p. 269. Gf. also R. Asensio, Misericordia et Veritas, 1949 pp. 16 f.
* II Kings 20.19, Isa. 39.8.
8 Ex. 20.5, Deut. 5.9; cf. Ex. 34.6 f.
4 Gf. The Rediscovery of the Old Testament, pp. 150 f. (American edition, pp. 213 f.)
1 1 4 The of Israel
part, and to the enlargement of the
which we on to our children, and the effect of our
character will fall in some on others^ so that our lives
are not wholly ours. At the same they are ours, and the
effect of our character will fall also on ourselves. Either side of
this truth may be appropriately emphasized in different situa-
tions. Both have to be held together in the totality of truth, and
the faith of Israel 3 as reflected in the Old Testament, was wisely
balanced in combining both.
This means that there is a problem of suffering which cannot
be solved. The book of Job was written to deal with that
problenij but not to solve it. Rather was its purpose to insist
that there is a problem of innocent suffering, which cannot be
explained by any process of human reasoning. It is sometimes
suggested that until the book of Job was written it was the
orthodox Israelite view that there was no such thing as innocent
suffering. 1 Such a suggestion is patently false. There is not the
slightest suggestion that Uriah deserved his death, or that Abel
was justly murdered. Jeremiah was sure that the malice of his
kindred was undeserved. 2 And all the prophets who denounced
the oppressions of their time were persuaded that the oppressed
were not reaping the fruit of their sins. It was only in certain
circles, at the time when the book of Job was written, that a
hard and rigid equation of desert and fortune, such as is no-
where characteristic of the Old Testament as a whole, was
made. If a man's acts may involve others in suffering, clearly
the suffering cannot prove the sin of the sufferer; on the
other hand, if his acts may involve himself in suffering, that
suffering may be the fruit of his sin. Hence there may be inno-
cent suffering, though not all suffering is innocent. The Bible
never tries to reduce the facts of experience to the simplicity the
theorist seeks. Jeremiah and Ezekiel insisted that not all suffer-
ing is innocent; the book of Job insists that some suffering is. It
does not attempt to fathom the cause of innocent suffering. It
tells the reader the cause in the case of Job; s but that is neces-
sary in order to establish to the reader that Job was not suffering
for his sin. Here he is told that Job is suffering to vindicate God's
1 Cf. I. G. Matthews, The Religious Pilgrimage of Israel, pp. 171 f., where it is said
that the friends of Job 'reiterated the time-honoured assumptions of the ancients*,
while Job Challenged the sacrosanct conclusions of the centuries*.
Jer. 11.91 ff., ia,6, Job 1.6 ff., a.i ff.
and i i 5
faith IB the purity of Ms motives against the of the
Satan. It thus appears that Job was supremely honoured in his
very sufferings for God had staked himself upon Job's integrity.
Nor did Job fail him. 1 Nevertheless, all this was concealed from
Job and from the friends, and despite all their discussion none
of them could fathom the reason. The friends were sure there
must be some explanation in Job's own Efe, while Job maintains
with vigour that he had not been so notable a sinner as to
justify his phenomenal misfortunes. The explanation of Job's
troubles was not given in the divine speech from the whirlwind*
and if it had been the book would have lost its message for men
who have to suffer in the dark. When God spoke from the
heavens, it was not to enlighten Job, but to remind Mm that
there were things too deep for him to understand, and that it is
idle for man to pass judgement on them in his ignorance. The
intellectual problem is left unsolved, so far as Job and Ms
friends are concerned, but rather lifted up into the larger
problems of the mysteries of life and of the universe.
Something of more worth than an intellectual solution of the
problem of suffering may be found here, however. If there may
be innocent suffering, then suffering does not of itself prove sin,
as Job's friends were too ready to suppose, and it is therefore
no evidence that a man is cut off from God. It was just here
that the cruelty of the view represented by the friends was
seen. In the hour of Ms suffering, when a man most needed
God, Ms suffering was increased by the knowledge that men
held it to be evidence that he was isolated from God, and he
Mmself was tortured by doubt of Mmself and of God, and un-
certain whether God's fellowship could still be Ms. But if
suffering does not prove sin, then the sufferer may not be ex-
cluded from God's presence, but may enjoy his fellowsMp.
And in the climax of the book Job rests in tMs thought. *I had
heard of thee by the hearing of the ear' he cries; 'But now I see
thee with my eyes.' 2 His suffering had brought Mm a deeper
knowledge of God than he had Mtherto had, and he rests in the
1 It must be remembered that though Job roundly complains of the injustice of his
sufferings, he nowhere expresses the slightest regret for the integrity of his way.
He affirms and clings to his integrity in his suffering, no less than in his prosperity,
and therefore he vindicates God's faith in the purity of his motive, and establishes
the slanderous nature of the Satan's implication that he was only righteous for
what he got out of it.
1 Job 42.5.
n6
contemplation of God. It is significant that it is to this point
that we arc brought. For in the thought of the Old Testament
the intellectual solution of a problem is of less moment than the
fellowship of God $ which was of supreme moment to man in all
its teaching. Its nearest approaches to philosophy are always
still theology. Nor can the intellectual problem of suffering yet
be solved by intellect alone* It is sometimes said that the faith in
a worth-wMle after life has given us an answer to the problem
denied to Job. But that is still the answer of faith and not of
demonstration. Nor does it really touch the problem. For what-
ever bliss the righteous may enjoy in the afterlife, that can offer
no explanation of suffering they may experience here. We, no
more than Job 3 can deduce the cause of all human suffering,
and when men experience suffering which they feel to be
innocent, instead of crying out against the injustice of God they
are wise to believe that it has some cause or purpose, though
concealed from them and hidden in the heart of God, and
through trust in him to find fellowship with him. 1 For in God's
fellowship is the spring of man's truest life and health.
All this may be found in germ in the ancient story of Joseph,
and men did not have to wait till the author of the book of Job
should write before they were given any glimpse of this profound
truth. Joseph was treated with a malice he did not deserve, and
was carried down to Egypt and set menial tasks in a prison. In
the development of the story both Joseph and the reader come
to see that there was a divine purpose behind all this; but when
Joseph was in the prison he had no more means than Job of
understanding his misfortune in being swiftly taken from being
the favourite son of his father to be a slave in a foreign land.
Yet Joseph does not torture himself with doubts, but reaches
quite simply the point that Job attains with so much difficulty.
Tahweh was with Joseph.' 2 He accepts ill fortune as he had
accepted good, without complaint and without question, and is
content to find in the presence and fellowship of God that which
transfigures the experience for him.
1 In Submission in Suffering and other Essays, 1951, pp. I ff., I have examined the
varying basis of the attitude of patient acceptance of suffering inculcated by a
number of eastern religious teachers, and have argued that more important than
patience is the spring of power offered for its attainment. C now E. F. Sutdiffe,
Providence and Suffering in the Old and New Testaments, 1955 (issued while the present
work was in the press).
8 Gen. 39.21.
and 11 j
Reference has been made to the thought of the Remnant, In
relation to the Israelite idea of man's individual and social char-
acter. The community could be narrowed down to a part*
which could represent it and continue its inheritance. TMs idea
of the Remnant is found throughout the Bible, and is not con-
fined to the teaching of the prophets. 1 In the story of the lood
Noah and his family constitute the Remnant, in whom the
divine creative purpose is concentrated. The blessing promised
to Abraham and his seed was limited to one of the sons of Isaac.
In the time of Elijah we read of a righteous Remnant of seven
thousand, who had not bowed the knee to Baal, but remained
loyal to God. 2 Amos speaks of a Remnant who were saved as a
brand plucked from the burning/ or as a few scraps of a sheep
saved from the lion's mouth. 4 Especially characteristic is the
thought of the Remnant in Isaiah, 5 but it is also found in
Micah, e in Jeremiah 7 and in EzekieL 8 Sometimes the Remnant
1 It is partly for this reason that I am not able to subscribe to the view of Gressmann
(Die Ursprung der israelitisch-jtidischen Eschatologu, 1905, pp. 229 ff., 242 ) that
the concept of the Remnant belongs to the terminology of eschatology. Gf. J.
Skinner, Isaiah (Gamb. B.), i, 1915 ed., p. Ixiv, and S. Mowinckel, Pwtmenstudim t
ii, 1922, pp. 276 ff. R. de Vaux (R.B., xlH, 1933, p. 539) well says: 'A chaque
epoque le Reste, c*est d*abord ce qui echappera du danger present. Mais*
derriere ce premier plan oft les eVnements contemporains se dessinent plus nets
dans la conscience du prophete, on en disceme un second, doming par la per-
sonne du Messie: le Reste y est identifi6 a Flsrael nouveau; 6tabh en Terre
promise, il y forme une communaut6 sainte qui vit dans 1'axnour et la crainte de
Jahv6 et recueille ses benedictions. Ge n*est pas tout, car on devine un plan plus
lointain et plus vaste encore; il se deploie a 1 horizon des temps, loncpie le Reste,
non seulement Israel nouveau, mais Flsrael spirituel, ayant recueilH a la ibis
tous les disperses du peuple et tous les convertis des nations, subsistera seul devant
Jahv< dans Pan&antissement d^finitif des m6chants j .
* I Kings 19.18.
8 Amos 4.1 1 . On the Remnant in Isaiah cf. K. Cramer, Amos (B.W.A.N.T., Hi, 15),
I93<>> pp. 130 &
4 Amos 3.12.
5 Gf. Isa. 1.9, 4.3, 7.3, 8.18, 10.20 ff., 17.4 ff., 28.5, 37.31 f. On the Remnant in
Isaiah cf. Garofalo, La Nozione pmfetica del 'Resto tflsraek*, pp. 70 ff.; also G. A.
Danell, Studies in the Name Israel in the Old Testament, 1946, pp. 162
* Micah 2.12 f. and Micah 5.7 (Heb. 6 ). This latter passage is attributed to
Micah by E. Sellin, Das Zwdlfprophetenbuch (K.A.T.), 1929, p. 308, while O.
Eissfeldt (Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1934, p. 457) is doubtful if it should be so
attributed. Others with more confidence deny it to Micah; so K. Marti,
Dodekapropheton (K.H.G.), 1904, p. 285, J. M. P. Smith, Micah, ^ephaniah and
Mahtm (I.G.C.), 1912, pp. no , H. Guthe, in H.S.A.T., ii, 1923, p. 61, G. W.
Wade, Micah, Obadiah,Joel and Jonah (West. G.), 1925, pp. 38 , T. H. Robinson,
Die zwdlf Kleinen Propheten (H.A.T.), 2nd ed., 1954, p. 144, R. H. Pfeiffer.
Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 593, and A. Weiser, Die zu&lf Kleinen Propheten
(A.T.D.), i, 1949, p. 246. These differ widely as to the probable date of the oracle.
For our present purpose neither date nor authorship is of moment.
7 Jer. 23.3 f. On the Remnant in Jeremiah c Garofalo, op. tit., pp. 117 ff.
* Ezek. 1 1 . 1 9 , 36.22 ff. On the Remnant in Ezekiel, cf. Garofalo, op, cit., pp. 1 38 ff.
1 1 8 The of
is of as about the sparing of the community,
as a have saved Sodom, 1 and sometimes as
itself spared to convey to a future generation the promise
of and the knowledge of his will. Always the Remnant
in itself the life and the promise of the community.
It is not always a righteous Remnant. Sometimes it is spared in
the mercy of God/ not because it deserves to be spared/ but
in order that it may carry down to another day the revelation
it not value itself. It is never thought of as a company of
individuals, but as a corporate whole. Wherever it appears, the
Remnant is for the moment the people of God, heirs of the
promises and of the revelation and purpose of God.
This narrowing down of the community is found in the Old
Testament in other forms. Attention is frequently called to the
Hebrew conception of corporate personality. 4 The term occurs
nowhere in the Bible, but is a modern creation to express a
view which is common in the Old Testament. It is a particular
form of the concentration of the life of the community for the
moment, often in a single individual, and much wider in its
reference than the thought of the Remnant. For any purpose
the Hebrew could think of an individual who was the represen-
tative of the community, or whose experience was typical of that
of the community, as identified with the community. 5 For the
time being he was the community, and he could use the first
person singular when he was speaking in the name of the com-
munity. He could equally speak of the community in the third
person. For there was in his thought a fundamental fluidity,
whereby he could pass back and forth from the thought of him-
self to the thought of the community, and from the thought of
the community to himself, in whom for the moment its experi-
ence or its life is concentrated or represented.
It is probable that the Suffering Servant of Deutero-Isaiah
is to be understood in this way, the Servant standing both for
1 Gen. 18.16 ff. * Cf. Amos 3.12, Isa. 1.9. * Cf. Amos 4.11.
4 This term is associated especially with the name of H. Wheeler Robinson,
though others have also recognized the phenomenon the term denotes. Cf. The
People and the Book, ed. by A. S. Peake, 1925, pp. 353 ff., The Psalmists, ed. by
D C, Simpson, 1926, pp. 67 ff., Warden md Wesen des Alien Testaments (B.Z.A.W.,
No. 66), ecL by J. Hempel, 1 936, pp. 49 ff.
6 Cf. H. W. Robinson, Werden imd Wesen> p. 49: 'The whole group including its
past, present and future members, might function as a single individual through
any one of those members conceived as representative of it.'
and i ig
the personified community and for an Individual who should
perfectly represent it and fulfil in himself the of the
community. To review the endless discussion which has
devoted to the question of the identification of the Servant is
both unnecessary and impossible here. 1 In the nineteenth cen-
tury many scholars adopted the view which had long been
current in Jewish circles, that the Servant was the whole people
Israel. 2 This left some problems unsolved, since in one of the
songs the Servant has a mission to Israel/ and would seem to be
distinct from Israel. Hence the view was put forward that the
Servant was the ideal Israel, 4 or else the Israel within Israel/
the faithful Remnant/ in whom the mission of the entire
community was concentrated. Yet the fourth song, the song that
tells of the death and resurrection of the Servant, gives so strong
a feeling of the individuality of the Servant* that scholars re-
turned to an individual interpretation of this figure. Instead of
returning to the traditional Christian messianic view, however,
they looked for some figure contemporary with the prophet, or
of the preceding ages, who might seem to fit the part, and a
whole series of unlikely candidates were brought forward. A
1 This has been admirably done by G. R. North in The Suffering Senani m Dmtero~
Isaiah, 1948, and, more briefly, with reference to a much shorter period, by the
present writer in The Servant of the Lord, pp. 3 ff. Much additional literature is cited
by W. Zimmerli and J. Jeremias, in Tk.W.B., v, 1954, pp. 653 ff. (E.Tr. The
Servant of God (S.B.T.), to appear in 1957).
2 This view was still maintained by A. S. Peake, The Servant of Tahmh, 1931, pp.
i ff., and A. Lods, The Prophets of Israel, E. Tr., pp. 244 ff.
8 Isa. 49.5 f.
4 This view was maintained by H. Ewald, Commentary on the Prophets of the Old
Testament, E. Tr. by J. F. Smith, iv, 1880, pp. 248 ff., 292 ff., S. Davidson,
Introduction to the Old Testament, iii, 1863, pp. 62 ff., A. B. Davidson, Old Testament
Prophecy, 4th imp., 1912, pp. 408 ff., and J. Skinner, Isaiah xl-lxvi (Gamb. B.),
rev. ed., 1917, pp. 263 ff. Cf. J. Lindblom, The Servant Songs in Deutero-Isaiah, 1951,
where it is argued that the Servant is an allegorical figure, symbolizing Israel in
its call, present situation, and mission (cf. p. 102).
5 This view is represented by O. C. Whitehouse, Isaiah (Gent. B.), ii, pp. 18 ff.,
E. Konig, Das Buchjesaja, 1926, pp. 444 ff., and Z.A.W., xlvii (N.F. vi), 1929,
pp. 255 , and I. G. Matthews, The Religious Pilgrimage of Israel, pp. 174 ; cf.
also P. A. H. de Boer, O.T.S., Hi, 1943, p. 196, and O. J. Baab, The Theology of
the Old Testament, p. 197.
* Miss A. E. Skemp (E.T., xliv, 1932-3* PP- 94 ) advances the theory that the
Servant is a personification of the Remnant, and couples this with the suggestion
that in Isa. 7.14 Immanuel is a similar personification. On this view the one
passage tells of the birth of 'ImmanueF, and the others of *his* reaching his full
stature.
1 20 The of
contemporary Icproms rabbi/ or Jeremiah* 8 or
Zcrabbabcl/ or Jehoiachin, 4 or Uzziah, 5 or Moses/ was sug-
gested. More recently Deutcro-Isalah himself has been pro-
posed. 7 It seems very unlikely that aay of these can really have
thought of in the terms in which the Servant is portrayed, 8
and the fact that in one verse the Servant is identified with
Israel* provides a difficulty for all these individual views. It is
common to resort to surgery to cut out the difficult word but
there is no serious evidence in support of this excision, save the
1 Cf. B. Ehihm, Jean* (H.K.), and ed. 9 1902, p. 359, A. Marmorstein, g.A.W.,
xliv (N.F. Hi), 1926, pp. 260 ff., M. Buber, The Prophetic Faith, E.Tr. by C.
Witton-Davies, 1949, pp. 237 ; cf. also J. Monteith, E.T., xxxvi, 1924-5, pp.
2 Of. F. A. Farley, E.T., xxxviii, 1926-7, pp. 521 IF., where it is argued that the
writer began with the thought of Jeremiah as the personification of Israel's
mission, and on his career bases his representation of the fulfilment of that
mission by the prophetic element in Israel. Gf. also S. H. Blank, H.U.C.A., xv,
1940, pp. 1 B ff. The identification of the Servant with Jeremiah was proposed
long ago by Saadia Gaon (cf. P. Volz, Jesma II (K.A.T.), 1932, p. 188, and
C. R. North, op. cit., pp. 20 ).
51 Cf. E. Sellin, Serubbabel, 1898, pp. 148 ff. (this view was later abandoned by
Sdlin).
4 G E. Sellin, Der Kwcht Gottes bei Deuterojesqja (Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte
der jildischen Gemeinde nach dem babylonischen Exil, i), 1901, pp. 204 ff., and
Das RMsel des deuterojesajajtischm Buches, 1908, pp. 131 ff., J. W, Rothstein, T.S.K.,
boor, 1902, pp. 282 ff., esp. 319 ff., A. van Hoonacker, Expositor, 8th series, xi,
1906, p. 210 (where Jehoiachin is regarded as the model for the description of the
future Messiah), W. Staerk, Die Ebed jfahwe-LMder in Jesaja 40 ff* 1913, pp.
137 (in the fourth song; in the first three songs (p. 129) Jeremiah is found),
E. Burrows, Thi Gospel of the Infamy t 1940, pp. 59 ff. (where the Servant is
identified with the house of David, past, present, and future, Jehoiachin being its
present representative), J. Coppens, Pro regno pro sanctuario (Festschrift for G.
van der Leeuw), 1950, pp. 1 18 ff. ^where Jehoiachin is held to be the model for
the portrayal of the Messiah in the first three songs, and Zechariah in the fourth),
F. M. Th. Bohl, JV^.T.T., iv, 1949-50, pp. 161 ff. (where it is suggested that
Jehoiachin was put to death the year after his release as the royal substitute).
* Cf. K. Dietze, Ussia, der Knecht Gottes, 1929, and Nachwort t 'Ussia', 1930. This
view was presented a century and a quarter earlier by J. C. W. Augusti (cf.
North, op. cit., p. 41).
* Cf. E. Sellin, Mose und seine Bedeutungftir die israeKtisch-jtidische Rdi^omgtsthichte^
1922, pp. 81 ff. For some writers who have held the Servant to be a second
Moses, cf. The Servant of the Lord, p. 46 n.
7 Gf. S. Mowinckel, Der Knecht jfahu>8s t 1921 (but cf. his later view, modifying this,
in %.A,W,, xlix (N.F. viii), 1931, pp. 242 ff., Acta Orientalia, xvi, 1938, pp. i ff.,
and Han som kommer, 1951, pp. 129 ff.), E, Sellin, JV.JT.^., xli, 1930, pp. 73 ff.,
145 ff., and Z.A.W., Iv (N.F. xiv), I937,,PP. *77 &> J- Begrich, Studien syi
Deutewjesaja (B.W.A.N.T., iv, 25), 1938, pp. 131 ff., and P. Volz, Jesaia II
(K.AJT,), 1932, pp. 149 ff-
* In addition there are the views of the Swedish school, for some account of which
cf. The Servant of the Lord, pp. 42 ff., and C. R. North, S.J.T., iii, 1950, pp. 363 ff.
The view of A. Bentzen, and his critical survey of the views of some of his Scandi-
navian colleagues, are now available in English in King and Messiah, 1955, PP-
48 ff.
* Isa, 49.3.
and 121
theory It is intended to serve. A Hebrew
omits the word, but it is a very poor manuscript, which is
no account of anywhere save here* 1 Metrical considerations
are invoked in favour of the excision* but metrically a better
case can be made out for the retention than for the excision. 1
It is often stated that the Septuagint offers evidence for its
excision, but the standard editions of the Septuagint show no
such evidence, 8 and the scholars who most insist that the
Septuagint does offer evidence do not say in what manuscripts
they find it.
All this means that unless we adopt a fluid view of the identi-
fication of the Servant we can find no satisfactory answer to the
problem. One form of the fluid view has been in terms of cor-
porate personality, as just outlined. Here it is held that there is
a transition between the thought of Israel and the prophet
himself. 4 In some of the songs we find the first person singular,
and in others the Servant is spoken of in the third person* This
view does not seem to do justice to the problems of the fourth
song, and it seems more satisfactory to adopt a view which is
not new, indeed, but which sees in the Servant Israel, called
to be the light of the nations and charged with a mission to the
world, narrowing down to the Remnant and then to a single
individual, in whom the mission is concentrated. 5 The Servant
is at once Israel and an individual, who both represents the
1 Gf. J. A. Bewer, Jewish Studies in Memory of George A. KoJmt, 1935, pp. 86 ff.
B. Kennicott (Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis Uciwmbw, ii, 1780, p. 79)
notes that this MS shows many variants. It is curious that this one, and this one
alone, should be given exaggerated significance by scholars to whose theories it
happens to be convenient. Gf. R. Kittel, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, m t p, 228,
J. van der Ploeg, Les Chants du Serviteur de Jahot, 1936, pp. 36 ff,, L. Dennefeld,
Les grands Prophetes (Pirot-Clamer's Sainte Bible), 1947, p. 179.
2 Cf. F. Pratorius, Z.A.W., xxxvi, 1916, pp. 9 f., P. Humbert, La Bible du Cmtenaxre,
ii, 1947, p. 407.
3 Holmes and Parsons (Vetus Testamentum graecum cum variis kctionibus, iv, 1827,
ad loc.) do not record any MS which lacks this word; neither do H. B. Swete
(The Old Testament in Greek, iii, 3rd ed., 1905, ad loc.) and J. Ziegler (Isaias
(Septuaginta xiv), 1939, ad loc.). It is clear that the *many MSS* which are often
stated to omit this word (cf. S. Mowinckel, De senere profeter, 1944, p. 233 n., and
Han som kommer, p. 334; L. Koehler, Deuterojesaja stilkritisch untersucht, 1923, p. 37)
are either non-existent or completely unimportant. It is much to be desired that
the scholars who invoke them should disclose which MSS they are.
4 Gf. H. Wheeler Robinson, The Cross in the Old Testament, 1955, p. 78-9.
5 Cf. The Servant of the Lord, pp. 49 ff., for my presentation of this view,* cf. also
A. Gausse, Israel et la vision de Vhtananitt, 1924, p. 54. For the 'pyramid 1 view of
Delitzsch and of his followers, which is in some respects similar to this view, cf.
C. R. North, The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah, 1948, pp. 44 ff.
1 22 The of
whole community carries to its supreme point the mission
of the nation, while calling the whole people to enter into that
mission, so it be its mission and not merely his. That
this is a future individual in the thought of the prophet seems
to me beyond question.
If this view is correct, we have here a particular illustration
of the Old Testament conception of the solidarity of the com-
munity of all generations, and of the relation of the individual
to the community. The Servant is Israel today and tomorrow;
but Israel may be all or a few or one of its members. All this
springs readily out of the full recognition of man's sociality and
individuality, and is unintelligible without that twofold recogni-
tion. The nation was never thought of as an association of
individuals, but as an organic whole, in which the parts were
knit together as parts of one another, without losing their
individuality. On the other hand, there was never any lack of
recognition of the due rights of the individual. No social con-
tract theory of the state, and no absolutism of the state or of the
king, could be tolerated in the view of Israel's religious teachers.
The judicial murder of Naboth was an invasion of the rights of
the individual, and an incident that would provoke no com-
ment amongst many peoples not alone aroused deep resentment
in Israel, but stirred a prophet to vigorous denunciation of the
king face to face. The rights and duties of the state and of the
individual rested on no agreement or on human power, but on
the will of God. They are therefore essentially an element of
the faith of Israel.
There are corollaries of importance arising from the Old
Testament view of the individuality and the sociality of man. If
the well-being of the individual lies in his harmony with the will
of God, and if that well-being is bound up with the well-being
of the society of which he forms a part, it is of importance to
him that the whole society should be in harmony with the
divine will. By the same token, it is of importance to society
that aU its individuals should be in harmony with God's will,
since an individual could involve the community in dishonour
or suffering. No man could be indifferent whether his neigh-
bour walked in God's way or not, and there could be no delu-
sion that a man's religion was merely his own affair. Just as a
modern community recognizes that disease is not an exclusively
and i 23
Individual concern, so in the Old Testament sin, wMch con-
sists in disharmony with the will of God, is not simply an indivi-
dual concern. Nor can any individual be wisely Indifferent to
the sin of those around him. That was why the prophets were
tireless in calling men to walk in the way of God. It was because
this was their truest service to themselves, to their fellows and to
God. And since the nation was but a part of the wider society
of the world, Israel could not be indifferent to foreign peoples.
Amos was concerned about the neighbouring peoples, and not
merely about their attitude towards his own people. Their
inhumanity to one another stirred him. 1 Deutero-Isaiah pro-
claimed the mission of Israel to spread the light of her faith
through all the world. 2 The book of Jonah presents that mission
not in abstract terms, but in the concrete setting of a personal
mission to Nineveh. It is important that we should not think of
all this as something wholly new that came into the religion of
Israel at a particular date, but should recognize that it de-
veloped from a seed which was already there, and that it grew
from the fundamental thought of the Old Testament on the
nature of man as created in God's image, for his fellowship and
service, but as a member of a corporate society and not merely
as an individual, bearing his own measure of responsibility both
for himself and for that society, and involved in the corporate
life of society and in the life of the individuals that comprised
it, and ultimately concerned with the life of nations other than
his own. In the biblical conception of man there is a grandeur
and a wholeness that excites ever new wonder. It is the mur-
derer, Cain, who asks 'Am I my brother's keeper?' 8 In the true
faith of Israel every man was his brother's keeper, and Ms
brother was every man.
1 Amos 1.3, 6, 9, ii, 13, 2.1. a Isa. 42.6. 8 Gen. 4.9.
V
THE GOOD LIFE
IN the faith of Israel the good life consists in doing the will of
God. But this is of little significance until the will of God has
been defined. Islam demands implicit obedience to the will of
God no less than the Old Testament. In one of the papers read
to the twenty-third International Congress of Orientalists at
Cambridge the speaker said 'Allah is represented in the Qur'an
as a slave-owner whom the people who are Allah's slaves must
obey implicitly.* 1 In the Bible the term *Ebedh Tahweh, which
could be translated 'slave of Yahweh', is found often enough, 1
and men are exhorted to 'serve* God, where the verb is from the
same root as the noun 'slave 9 . Yet here nothing could be farther
from the truth than to suppose that in biblical thought the
relation between God and men is that of master to slave. The
Suffering Servant of Isa. 53 is *Ebedk Tahweh, and both here
and elsewhere it is a title of honour rather than of dishonour.
The Suffering Servant was dishonoured and maltreated by
men, but honoured by God. For in biblical thought the service
of God is always perfect freedom.
While there are passages in the Old Testament which under-
stand the will of God in ritual terms, it is of the essence of the
faith of Israel that his will is conceived in moral and spiritual
terms. Those who framed the Law, with all its insistence on the
minutiae of the ritual, were not indifferent to the spirit. In the
book of Exodus we read 'If ye will truly obey my voice, and
keep my covenant, ye shall be my own special treasure', 8 where
1 E, A. Belaiev, Formation of the Arab State and the Origin of Islam in the VII Century
(Papers presented by the Soviet Delegation at the XXIII International Congress
ofOrien " " *" *""
' C G. L
V. deL<
given. 11
Solomon. \
entalists, Islamic Studies), 1954, p. 23.
T-__J'L_ T-t- .. 40Jjjfij| **- - '"
*iw, in L'AttenU du Messie, 1954, pp. $i f.n., where full references are
given. The term is used of prophets, of Moses, of individual Israelite kings (David,
HezeMah), and of Nebuchadnezzar, as well as of the figure depicted
, , .
9 Gf. C. Lindhagen, The Servant Motif in the Old Testament, 1950, pp. 152 ft., and
V. de Leeuw, in UAttente du Messie, 1954, pp. 1 f.n., where Ml references are
in the Servant Songs of Deutero-Isaiah.
Ex. 19,5.
124
The Life 125
there is no suggestion that ritual acts were in mind. In
Deuteronomy we read Thou shah love Yahweh thy God with
all thy heart 9 / and this is more fundamental than any of the
detailed regulations that follow. In Leviticus we find the great
word 4 Thou shah love thy neighbour as thyself '* a word which
would have graced any prophet. In the unpromising context of
a chapter which abounds in ideas and practices which were not
specifically Israelite but shared with her neighbours the un-
provoked attack on neighbouring peoples when opportunity
offered, the fierce and inhuman massacre of whole communities,,
and the cold-blooded slaughter of conquered foes in such an
unpromising context we find the classic word *Has Yahweh as
much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obedience
to his voice? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to
hearken than the fat of rams.' s In Proverbs we have s To do
righteousness and justice is more acceptable to Yahweh than
sacrifice', 4 and in the Psalter 'The sacrifices of God are a broken
spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not
despise'. 5 The thought that obedience is more important than
sacrifice is therefore one which is found in various forms widely
expressed in the Bible, and it is clear that in such a context
obedience must mean something other than obedience to ritual
ordinances.
What is believed to be the oldest Decalogue in the Bible is
found in Ex. 34. 6 This is commonly referred to as the Ritual
Decalogue, because it is concerned only with such things as the
observance of feasts, and the offering of sacrifices and first-
fruits. Three provisions it has in common with the more familiar
Decalogue of Ex. 20. It demands the exclusive worship of
Yahweh, 7 it prohibits the making of images, 8 and it requires
the observance of the sabbath. I have elsewhere argued that
this was a pre-Mosaic Decalogue which was taken over by
Israel, and which prescribed some of the forms of the religion
which Moses established. 10 But Moses gave the people a new
Decalogue to epitomize the basic demands of their faith. This
1 Deut. 6.6. a Lev. 19.18. * I Sam. 15.22.
4 Prov. 21.3. 5 Ps. 51.17 (Heb. 19).
8 Ex. 34.14 ff. In its present form it contains more than ten commands, but it is
commonly believed that there were originally ten, though there is less agreement
as to which they were. On this Decalogue cf. S.J.R.L., xxxiv, 1951-2, pp. 88 f,
and the literature I there cite.
f Ex. 34.14. 8 Ex. 34.17. Ex. 34.21. 10 B.J.R.L., loc. cit.
126
is the Decalogue contained In Ex, 20. Apart from the provisions
which it has in common with the other Decalogue it is con-
cerned with such as the honouring of parents, and the
avoidance of murder, theft, adultery and false witness. These
arc ethical and not ritual matters. Moreover, the last command
beneath conduct to the spring of conduct, 1 and calls
for a watch on the heart, that evil desire may be avoided before
It leads to evil acts. Here, then, we see something of what
obedience to the will of God meant for Israel from the days of
Moses. It meant the bringing of ordinary life under God's
control^ and beyond that the bringing of the spirit into harmony
with his.
The common notion that ethical religion took its rise with
the eighth century prophets will scarcely bear examination.
The prophets were filled with indignation when they saw men
oppressing and exploiting one another. But long before their
day Moses was filled with indignation when he saw Egyptians
oppressing Israelites. His response was to kill an Egyptian task-
master^ and while that led him but to the wilderness it clearly
showed his attitude towards oppression. Moreover, in his call he
found that his hatred of oppression was but a reflection of the
divine hatred, 8 though God's way of dealing with it was other
than his had been. It may be said that in all ages men have
found it easy to wax indignant against foreign oppressors. But
Moses, like the prophets, was just as ready to rebuke his fellow-
Israelites as foreigners. When he saw an Israelite maltreating
another he said to the one who wronged his fellow 'Wherefore
smitest thou thy fellow?' 4 The story of Sodom and Gomorrah
was recorded long before the time of the eighth century
prophets, and it proclaims the divine condemnation of moral
iniquity. The city might have been spared had it contained but
a handful of righteous men, 6 and it is clear that righteous men
were thought of as men who were virtuous in life. It was by
their life that they were judged by God, and not by their obser-
vance of any form of religion. Even Solomon, who erected the
Jerusalem Temple, which was so highly esteemed by the
Deuteronomic editor of the book of Kings, is not exempt from
1 On this command cf. J. Herrmann, in Bdtr&ge zur Religionsgesckichte und Archfo-
logie Pol&stmos (SdHn Festschrift), 1927, pp. 69 ff.,- B. Jacob, J.&.R., N.S. xiv,
1933-4, pp. 166 ff.; W. J. Coatcs, Z.A.W., lii (N.F. xi), 1934, pp. 238 f.
* Ex. 2.12. 8 Ex. 3.7. * Ex. 2.13. * Gen. 18.32.
The Good Life 127
criticism, and the same Deuteronomic editor records how the
prophet Ahijah Instigated Jeroboam to head a revolt. 1 Though
the revolt was nipped In the bud and Jeroboam was forced to
flee to Egypt, 2 he returned later to carry through the disrup-
tion of the kingdom. Long before the eighth century prophets
there was a hatred of oppression, injustice and unrighteousness
manifest In the religious leaders and writers of Israel.
In the earliest Israelite law-book which has come down to us
we read $ Thou shalt not pervert the judgement of thy poor in
his cause . . . The innocent and righteous slay then not: for
I will not acquit the guilty.* 4 In Deuteronomy, again, the strict
administration of justice is enjoined. *Thou shalt not pervert
judgement; thou shalt not respect persons: neither shalt thou
take a bribe . . . That which is altogether just shalt thou
follow.* 5 In the Holiness Code we find the same thing. *Ye shall
do no unrighteousness in judgement; thou shalt not be partial
to the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but with
justice shalt thou judge thy neighbour.* f In all periods Israelite
law forbade the perversion of justice. When the eighth century
prophets so vigorously denounced the bribery that went on in
the courts, and the miscarriage of justice that went on around
them, and called for righteousness to flow through the life of the
nation as a never-failing stream, 7 they were calling men to obedi-
ence to what they ought to have known to be the will of God.
Similarly righteousness in commercial transactions was seen
to be the corollary of this justice which should flow through all
the nation, and not merely be a quality of judges. 'Thou shalt
not have in thy bag different weights ... A perfect and just
weight shalt thou have' is the demand of Deuteronomy, 8 and a
similar law stands in the Holiness Code. 9 While these codes in
their present form are later than the denunciations of some of
the prophets, they are not presenting new principles, which
were first formulated by the prophets. The whole weight of the
prophets* word lies just in the fact that men who used unjust
measures ought to have known, and indeed, did know, that
they were doing wrong. In our desire to recognize the greatness
of the prophets, we should not attribute to them originality
I 1 Kings 11.26 ff. * I Kings 1 1.40. * I Kings 12.2. 4 Ex. 23.6.
Deut. 16.19. * Lev - I 9- I 5- 7 Gf e -S-> Amos 5 IS * *5> 2 4-
8 Deut. 25.18, 15. * Lev. 19.35
1 28 The of
they to obedience to the known
of Israel's denounced those who lay
in the on clothes/ when the older law of
the of the that such garments
be to the borrower every night. 1 When
those who added lands to lands/ and used
power to their weaker neighbour or when
similarly who coveted their neighbours*
and took away, 4 they were condemning men who
forgot the tenth commandment*
It should never be forgotten that the prophetic demand was
religious^ and that it sprang from the conception of God. If
God demanded righteousness, it was because he was himself
righteous. In the ancient story of Abraham's pleading with
God before the destruction of Sodom 5 a story which in its
literary form is older than the eighth century prophets, the
patriarch asks "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?' 5
This appeal to the justice of God is an implicit recognition of
that justice. Elsewhere, it is stated explicitly. It is declared by
Jeremiah; 6 it is declared in the Song of Moses in Deut. 32 ; 7 it
is declared by psalmists. 8 Moreover, in the pictures of the
messianic age a righteousness which is the reflection of the
righteousness of God is an integral element. The shoot out of
tlie stock of Jesse, of whom Isaiah speaks, 9 was to have the
spirit of the Lord upon him, and because of that it was said
*with justice shall he judge the needy, and give decision with
equity for the meek 10 of the earth.' 11 There is no part of the Old
Testament which does not recognize that justice belongs
essentially to the good life. It is not merely prescribed for rulers
and judges, but for all classes and in all relations of life.
Some of the evils which the prophets denounced were denials
of mercy as well as of justice. And mercy also is an element of
the good life. Not all the appropriations of land were carried
1 Amos 2.8. a Ex. 22.26 (Heb 25). * Isa. 5.8. 4 Micah 2.2.
5 Gen. 18,25. 6 J er - I2 - J 7 Deut. 32.3. 8 Psa. 116.5, i^W* 3 45**7'
8 On the authorship of this passage cf. below, p. 188,11.7.
l0 There has been much discussion of the word used here and another closely
similar form, and of the whole question of the poor in the Old Testament. Gf.
H. Birkeland, s Ani und *Anaw in den Psalmen, German Tr. by L. Rapp, 1933; A.
Causse, Les 'Pauvres* d* Israel, 1922; ]. van der Ploeg, Q.T.S., vii, 1950, pp. 236 ff.;
A. Gelin, Les Pauvres de Yahpt (Te*moins de Dieu, No. 14), 1953; G. van Leeuwen,
Le D&wloppement du sens social en Israel ', 1954.
11.4.
The Good Life 129
through by bribery by the of justice in the
courts. The poor were to borrow
the rich to tide them over till the harvest, so the
obtained power over them which they were ready to exploit.
The appeal here was not to justice but to mercy* For if justice
forbade a man to seize from another more than was Ms due,
mercy might lead him to demand less than he claim.
The appeals on behalf of the widow and the fatherlesr were
probably not all appeals to justice against men who were
illegally crushing them. Some were almost certainly appeals to
men who might legally crush them to have mercy on their
pitiful state. The justice to which the prophets summoned
men was no hard and unfeeling inflexibility, but a justice which
was tempered with compassion* and which reflected the divine
compassion for Israel. Just as God had had mercy on the
people who were suffering the Egyptian bondage, so the hearts
of his people should be moved with compassion for those who
were suffering, whether from injustice or from circumstances.
The book of Deuteronomy is commonly held to reflect the
teachings of the eighth century prophets. While this is probably
true, it should not be forgotten that those prophets reflected the
spirit of Israel's faith as it was known before their time. They
were not the first to perceive the mercy of God; and the mercy
of God was itself the demand for mercy amongst men. But these
prophets gave fuller expression to the spirit of compassion, and
brought this corollary of their faith into clearer focus, and the
book of Deuteronomy nobly embodied that corollary in its
legislation. c lf there be with thee a poor man, one of thy
brethren . . . thou shalt not harden thy heart, nor shut thy
hand from thy poor brother.' 1 The widow, the fatherless and
the Levite are commended to chanty. 2 Further, when Job
maintains the integrity of his way, he shows clearly some of the
elements that were believed to belong to the good life. He says
e lf I have withheld the poor from their desire, Or have caused
the eyes of the widow to fail; Or have eaten my morsel alone,
And the fatherless has not eaten thereof ... If I have seen
any perish for want of clothing, Or the needy lack covering
. , . Then let my shoulder-blade fall from the shoulder, And
mine arm be broken from the joint.' 3
1 Deut. 15.8. * Deut. 16.11, 14, 24.19, 20, 26.13. a Job. 31.16 , 19, 22.
1 30 The of
This mercy could be a form of the expression of which
was^ however, much more than compassion* It was a quality of
loyalty and devotion which a man should show towards God in
response to all that God had done for him as a member of the
covenant community of Israel. 1 It was also a quality which he
should show towards those who stood with him within the
covenant. It involved more than mere loyalty to one another,
important though that was. It also involved a devotion,, or
loving-kindness, as the word is often rendered in the English
version, that would lead to the initiative In service comparable
with the divine initiative towards Israel* It was a reflection of
the spirit of God, and not merely a response to that spirit.
Hosea declares that it is this quality which God looks for more
than sacrifice, 2 and Micah defines the demand of God in terms
of justice and of this rich quality of mutual service, springing
from the humble walk with God. 8
Jeremiah found that men were neighing after one another's
wives in Jerusalem, 4 and before him Hosea had declared that in
northern Israel adultery was rampant. 5 Here was a breach of
one of the Ten Commandments and a denial of that mutual
loyalty to one another that was involved in hesedh. There is
much evidence in the Old Testament that sexual vice of various
kinds was common in Israel, but it stands everywhere con-
1 This statement was challenged by one of my audience, who denied that man can
show faesedh towards God. It is true that the word does not often occur in this
sense. In Jer. 2.2 and Hos. 6.4 it would seem to have it, though less probably in
Hos. 6.6, where it may better be taken to refer to behaviour towards fellow-men.
But the word frastdh, which means 'one who practises fiesedk' is frequently used
for the 'pious* , or the one who is dutiful towards God. By its form it could be
active or passive, one who shows fiesedh, or one who is treated with fasedh; but
many passages allow only of the former meaning. This is made quite clear in
many passages in the Targum. Thus the word is rendered by 'righteous* in I Sam.
2.9 and Prov. 2.8, by 'innocent* in Ps. 4.3 (Heb. 4), 16.10, 43.1, by *good* in
Ps. 1 2. i (Heb. 2). Since the word itself was also an Aramaic word, and is usually
represented in the Targum by the same word as in the Hebrew, it may be pre-
sumed that the translator understood it. In Deut. 33.8, where the Targum
employs the same word, instead of 'thy hdsidh\ it has 'the one who is found to be
frSddh before thee*. Clearly, therefore, it did not understand it to mean 'the one
who receives fasedh from thee*. Moreover, decisive for the active sense is the fact
that this word is used of God in Jer. 3.12, Ps. 145.17. It is quite impossible to
suppose that when God says in the former of these verses *I am ftastdh* he means
that he has been treated with fresedh, since the whole burden of the verse is that he
has not. Gf. L. Gulkpwitsch, Die Entwicklung des Begnffes hosed im Alien Testament
(Acta Seminarii Universitatis Tartuensis Judaici, No. i), 1934. S. T. Byington
(J.B.L., be, 1941, p. 283) defines a hasMh as 'one who is in friendly relations with
God*.
1 Hos, 6.6. 'Micah 6.8. 4 J<*. 5.8. Hos. 4.2.
The 131
demned. In the fertility cult of Canaan ritual was
one of the forms of religion/ and too often under the influence
of this cult we find Its presence In Israel Amos 8
condemned it, though It is a common view that Hosea's wife
was a sacred prostitute before he married her, 5 On this view
he was impelled by what he felt to be a divine urge to take from
what was to him the most loathsome of lives the woman who so
unworthily requited Ms love. Be that as it may^ there can be no
doubt that sexual purity belonged to the good life in the eyes of
the prophets, 6 who refused to distinguish between sacred and
secular prostitution. To them all extra-marital relations were
an abomination. The same Is true of the sages whose words are
preserved in the book of Proverbs* Again and again the disciples
are warned against the strange woman, 7 and the Intention is to
warn against every sort of Illicit relation.
Nevertheless, there was nothing ascetic about the faith of
Israel, and the family virtues were inculcated. The first com-
mand of God is said to have been c Be fruitful and multiply 3 , 8
and marriage and the raising of a family were held to be a part
of the good life. 'Enjoy life with the wife whom thou iovest all
the days of the life of thy vanity' said the preacher. It is true
l Cf. J. Pedersen, Israel III-IV, pp. 469 ff. Similar practices were current in
Babylonia (cf. Driver and Miles, The Babylonian Laws, i, 1952, pp. 360, ffl).
There was also a class of votaries, distinct from the hierodules, but also dedicated
to the service of the temple (ibid., p. 371 ). That these were also sacred prostitutes,
though of a different class, under vow never to marry, is maintained by D. D.
LuckenbiU (A.J.S.L., xxxiv, 1917-18, pp. i ff.). According to the Code of
Hammurabi death was the penalty if they entered a tavern ( no), which was
synonymous with a house of ill fame (cf. S. A. Cook, Thi Laws of Moses and the
Code of Hammurabi, 1903, pp. 149 f.), and any false accusation of them was treated
as on the same level as a false accusation against the chastity of a married
woman ( 127). Their profession was therefore treated as an honourable one,
and they were distinguished from secular prostitutes.
2 Pedersen (op. cit., p. 470) says: *We receive the impression that sexual rites
dominated the Israelite cultus throughout the monarchical period, 9
* Amos 2.7 f. * Hos. 4.13
8 Cf. H. Schmidt, Z.AW, xlii (N.F. i), 1924, pp. 245 ff.; T. H. Robinson, T.S.K.,
cvi, 1934-5, pp. 301 ff.; O. R. Sellers, A.J.S.L., xli, 1924-5, p. 245; H. G. May,
J.B.L., Iv, 1936, p. 287; W. A. Irwin, in J. M. P. Smith, The Prophets and their
Times, 2nd ed., 1941, pp. 71 f.; G. Fohrer, Die Symbolischm Handlwgen der
Propheten, 1953, p. 21; A. Gelin, in Initiation Biblique (ed. by A. Robert and
A. Tricot), 3rd ed., 1954, p. 169.
6 Other prophets also, of course, condemn sacred prostitution, which appears to be
referred to in the following, amongst other, passages: Micah 1.7; Jer. 2.20,5. 7-
It. is prohibited in Deut. 23.17 f. (Heb. 18 f.) and Lev. 19.29.
7 Cf. Prov. 2.16, 5.3, 20, 6.24, 7.5, 22.14, 23.27. On the 'strange woman* in Pro-
verbs cf. P. Humbert, in Melanges Syriens ojferts a M, Rent Dussaud, i, 1939, pp.
259 ff., L. A. Snijders, O.T.S., x, 1954, pp. i ff., 88 ff.
8 Gen. 1.28. 9 Eccl. 9.9.
1 32 The
that was not but are warnings
against Its attendant evils the dissension and bitterness
It could bring into the home. 1 Moreover, monogamy must
always have been far more common than polygamy, and in the
later period there is little evidence of polygamy. 2 The ideal set
before men is never couched in terms of this, but always in
terms of mutual loyalty between husband and wife and of the
purity of the life of the home. 3
It is not without significance that the Song of Songs is in-
cluded in the Bible. The interpretation of this collection of
poems has been very varied and has been marked by many
fantastic improbabilities. 4 It is most probable that the book
is no more than it purports to be, a collection of love songs,
expressing with much freedom the spiritual and physical
emotions on which matrimony rests ? and the delight of a man
and a woman in one another. That such a book should be in
the Bible should occasion no surprise. The first command of
God, as has been said, was *Be fruitful and multiply*, and there
may be, and ought to be, something profoundly sacred in pure
human love. The Church has always encouraged men and
women to seal their union by an act of consecration before God,
and has taught them to think of it as Holy Matrimony. It is
therefore fitting that these poems should be found in the sacred
Canon, thus symbolically reminding men that their love should
be under the control of God and the life of their home be not
remote from their faith.
It will be observed that this aspect of the good life is not a
reflection of the life of God, since he is nowhere presented as
having sex. Many in Israel appear to have worshipped the
fertility goddess, and the book of Jeremiah gives us a glimpse of
rites whereby the Queen of Heaven was honoured. 5 In the
Jewish temple at Elephantine there appear to have been other
1 Gf. Gen. 29.30 f., 31.1, 1 Sam. 1.6; also Deut. 21.15 ff.
8 E. Neufeld (Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws, 1944, pp. 1 18 f.) notes that though it
was imcommon in post-exilic times, it continued to be practised in some Jewish
communities down to the Middle Ages. Gf. L. M. Epstein, Marriage Laws in
the Bibh and Talmud, 1942, pp. 16 ff.
8 Gf. W. P. Paterson, in DJ?., iii, 1900, p. 265 a: *Of still greater importance . . .
is the circumstance that monogamous marriage was extensively used in the
prophetic teaching as the symbol of the union of God with Israel, while polygyny
had its counterpart in idolatry.*
4 On this subject cf. my essay in The Servant of the Lord, pp. 187 ff.
6 Jer. 7. 18,44.17 ff.
The Life 133
deities 1 beside Yahweh, 2 and it is he was
with a consort in the impure worship But
in the true faith of Israel there is no Yahweh
ever thought of as having a consort or as a of sex. It is
true that God is thought of as sharing in all human procreation*
Children were received as his gift, and of God
as forming them in the womb. 4 But that was he
thought of as the author of all creation, and not he
thought of in sexual terms.
In a previous lecture it was said that God was believed to
be holy,, with a holiness that consisted in moral loftiness and not
merely separateness from man. It was because he was con-
ceived in such terms that men were called to show moral purity
in their lives. The qualities of God were called for from men,
in so far as they could be translated into the terms of human
life and experience, and the family virtues were one of the forms
of that translation. Yet they were far from being the only form,
When Isaiah cried c Woe to me! I am ruined; for I am a
man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of un-
clean lips 9 , 5 he was thinking of something much wider than
sexual impurity. In the light of the divine holiness he was con-
scious of all that marred his spirit, and of every moral blemish
that marked him. When the coal touched his lips it consumed
all the evil of his being, s so that he could now reflect the lofti-
ness of God's spirit in his life. Long before the time of Isaiah
1 In a subscription list from Elephantine (AP 22) we find that the donations were
divided as follows: 126 shekels for Yahweh, 120 shekels for Anath-bethel, and
70 shekels for Ishum-bethel (cf. A. Gowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C,*
1925, pp. 65 ff.). Here Ishum-bethel is perhaps to be connected with AsHznah
(II Kings 17.30 and Amos 8.14, where 'Ashirnah of Samaria* should be read
instead of *the sin of Samaria') while Anath-bethel is to be connected with Anath,
whose name survives in some biblical place names, and who figures in the Has
Shamra texts. In another Elephantine text one swears by Anath-yahu (AP 44:3;
ibid., p. 147) and in yet another one is challenged to swear by Herem-bethel (AP
7:7; ibid., p. 20). U. Gassuto held that these were all foreign gods, not wor-
shipped by the Jews, but only by the Gentile colonists (cf. Kedem, i, 1942, pp*
47 ff.), while W. F. Albright thinks they were hypostatized aspects of Yahweh
(From the Stone Age to Christianity, 2nd ed., pp. 286 f.; cf. Archaeology and the Religion
of Israel, 3rd ed., 1953, pp. 168 ff.). Gf. E. G. Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum
Aramaic Papyri, 1953, pp. 87 ff. Kraeling says it is indubitable that we have to do
with deities here (p. 88). Gf. also A. Dupont-Sommer, R.H.R., cxxx, 2945, pp.
17 ff., where evidence of the worship of some other god beside Yahweh, possibly
Chnub, is given from an ostracon from Elephantine.
2 The name stands here in a triliteral form, and is commonly transliterated Yahu.
3 It is possible that Anath, to whom the second largest gifts in the subscription list
go, was regarded as the consort of Yahweh (cf. Gowley, op. cit., p. xix).
4 Gf. Job 10.10 ff., 31.15. 5 Isa. 6.5. Isa. 6.7.
1 34 The of
we find examples of the loftiness of spirit that belonged to the
good life. In the story of Abraham we find depicted real nobility
of character. It is true that the patriarch was not monogamous
and that his passing Ms wife off as Ms sister to avoid trouble for
himself 1 cannot be commended. Yet when we judge him in the
light of the times in which he lived we are bound to recognize
true loftiness of character. His generosity to Lot 2 and Ms con-
cern for Mm after he had chosen to dwell in Sodom, 8 and even
Ms concern for that wicked city itself, impresses the reader with
his quality of personality. Even if this is only a story, it reveals
the writer's ideals, which were set before his readers. But I may
be permitted to add that I am persuaded there is some genuine
tradition concerning the character of Abraham embodied in
this story. If the stories of the patriarchs were mere fiction, it
would be hard to see why Abraham should be so much nobler
a character than Jacob, since Jacob was the ancestor of the
Israelite tribes while Abraham was the ancestor of other tribes
also. Israelite pride would have tended to exalt Jacob rather
than Abraham. The fact that it does not do so, and that Isaac,
who stands between them, is so largely colourless a creature,
would seem to imply that fidelity to an ancient tradition was
observed.
Again, Joseph is presented as a man of real integrity of
character. In adversity or in prosperity he is unwilling to turn
aside from the path of rectitude, and he knows no bitterness of
spirit. His magnanimity towards the brothers who had envied
and wronged Mm is one of the most moving stories of the Bible, 4
and it testifies to the integrity and grandeur of character that
was felt in Israel to belong to the good life.
Such character was no mere human acMevement. Its source
was the fellowsMp of God. 'Yahweh was with Joseph', 5 as he is
said to have been with many others, and it is only they who
know the humble walk with God who can conform to his Mgh
demands upon their lives. When the finger of God has written
Ms law on the heart, and when Ms spirit is given to man, then,
and then only, can he reflect the character of God and show the
qualities denoted by holiness and righteousness and mercy and
loyalty.
1 Gen. 13.10 ff., 20.1 ff. * Gen. 13.8 f. Gen. 18.20 ff.
4 Gen. 45.1 ff. s Gen. 39.2, ai. Micah 6.8.
The Life 135
This, however, brings us to another of the life,
without which his fellowship cannot continue to be enjoyed.
When Isaiah experienced the cleansing and renewal of Ms per-
sonality he immediately consecrated himself to the service of
God. 1 Without that consecration he could not have known the
fellowship of God. It is true that there were some persons who
were especially consecrated to God, such as kings and priests
and prophets and Nazirites* But that should not blind us to the
fact that every member of the Covenant people was called to
consecrate himself in a real sense to God. Just as Isaiah's con-
secration was the response he made to his cleansing, so at Sinai
the whole people consecrated itself to God in response to its
deliverance. The call for universal consecration is implicit in the
statement that Israel was called to be a kingdom of priests/
devoted to God's service and the medium of his service to the
world. Moreover, the great Deuteronomic word which Judaism
has always cherished, which calls on every Israelite to love the
Lord with every fibre of his being, 3 demands the spirit of conse-
cration from all men. Whoso loves God with all Ms heart must
consecrate himself to manifest his love. The good life consists
not alone in living uprightly, but in loving God; for love leads
to fellowship and fellowship to service. 'Teach me thy way, O
Yahweh' cried the psalmist; *I will walk in thy truth: 4 Let my
heart rejoice 5 to fear thy name. I will praise thcc, Yahweh my
God, with my whole heart; And I will glorify thy name for
ever.' 8
It is to be noted that the Wisdom writers are in fundamental
agreement here. It is often thought that the sages inculcated a
spirit of worldly wisdom that was not profoundly religious. This
is to do them an injustice. For all their teachings are rooted
and grounded in religion. The fear of Yahweh is the beginning
of wisdom' was their first principle, 7 and by the fear of the Lord
they did not mean terror before him, but reverence. Where we
read of love for God, as in the Deuteronomic word just quoted,
and in some passages in the Psalms, we are not to think of an
1 Isa. 6.8. * Ex. 19.6. 8 Deut. 6.5.
4 J* M. P. Smith (The Old Testament: an American Translation) here well renders
infidelity to thee'. Gf. above, p.i 13, n.i, on the meaning of the word **meth.
5 R.V. has 'Unite my heart*. The rendering above follows the LXX and Synac
renderings, which involve no change of the consonantal Hebrew text, and which
are followed by many editors.
Ps. 86.11 f. 7 Prov. 9.10,
1 36 Tie of
easy familiarity, but a love which is penetrated with reverence.
When the Wisdom writers speak of the fear of the Lord* they
are not thinking of something quite other than that love of God.
They recognize that God is the source of the good life, and that
Ms will is the foundation of human well-being. *Behold, the
fear of the Lord is wisdom; And to depart from evil is under-
standing.**
From all this it follows that worship is integral to the good
life. Not seldom the prophets are presented as men who were
opposed to the entire worship of the Temple, and who taught
that God wanted only obedience in daily life. It may suffice to
quote one writer of the present generation : 'These men had
denounced ritual as of no avail, but now, if possible, they went
farther, and made social ethics the essential, even the sole,
requirement of Yahweh.* 2 I have more than once offered
reasons for dissenting from this view, 3 and for maintaining that
while they did indeed demand that every aspect of daily life
must be brought under the control of God's will and purpose,
and held that without this any worship or offering was hollow
and meaningless, they were not indifferent to the value of
worship rightly offered. But even if it were true that the pre-
exilic prophets despised worship and demanded only conduct,
we should still need to remember that they were not the only
exponents of the faith of Israel, and that the importance of
worship is clearly recognized in much of the Old Testament.
The prophets resorted to the temple to find their audiences.
Amos went to the shrine of Bethel, 4 and Jeremiah to the
Temple in Jerusalem, 5 It was in the Temple that Isaiah re-
ceived his call,* and it is not surprising that it had a peculiar
place in his thought. In dark days, when he foresaw grave
disasters before the state, he promised that the Temple should be
spared, and for its sake Jerusalem. 7 When Jeremiah wrote down
some of his oracles through the pen of Baruch, he sent the scribe
into the Temple to read them publicly. 8 Whatever their attitude
to the sacrificial cultus may have been, they were clearly not
opposed to the existence of a centre of worship. It is true that
1 Job. 28.28.
2 I. G. Matthews, The Religious Pilgrimage of Israel^ 1947, p. 128.
3 Cf. J3.JJ2.I., xxix, 1945-6, pp. 326 ff., xxxiii, 1950-1, pp. 74 ff., and The Unity
of the Bible, pp. 30 ff.
4 Amos7.ioff. 5 Jer. 7.2, 26.2. 6 Isa.6.iff. 7 Isa. 31.4^,37.33. *J
The Life 137
Jeremiah, 1 Eke Micah,* predicted the of the
Temple, but this was as a punishment not a centre
of worship was in itself evil. Moreover, Jeremiah it
that by genuine repentance this destruction might be averted.*
In the well-known oracle which is attributed to both Isaiah*
and Micah 5 there is a prophecy of the day when men of all
nations should go up to the house of the Lord in Zion. WMle we
can never know with security what prophet uttered this
oracle, there is no need to transfer it to the post-exilic age, as
some scholars have done. In the book of Jeremiah there is an
oracle, which is often denied to that prophet, and which can
scarcely be in its original place, 7 which similarly promises the
day when Jerusalem shall be called the throne of the Lord, and
when all nations shall be gathered unto it. 8 That Ezekiel valued
the Temple and its worship is manifest from the thought that he
gave to its rebuilding and the detailed plan for its reconstruc-
tion which he sketches. 9 Haggai and Zechariah rebuked men
because they had not rebuilt it, and under their inspiration the
second Temple was erected. 10 Trito-Isaiah echoes the thought
of some of the other passages just mentioned when he says *My
house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples/ 11 There
is nothing to suggest that pre-exHic or post-exile prophets
thought that a centre of public worship was in itself something
objectionable or meaningless.
1 Jer. 7.14, 26.6. 2 Micah 3. 12. * Jer. 7.3, 26.3. 4 Isa. 2.2 ff. * Micah 4.1 ff.
6 Scholars who assign this passage either to Isaiah or to Micah, or to an even
earlier prophet, include B. Duhm, C. Cornill, A. van Hoonacker, G. H. Box,
E. Sellin, H. Schmidt, J. Fischer, J. Lippl and J. Theis, E. J. Kissane, A. H.
Edelkoort, L. Dennefeld, and J. Steinmann (for references cf. The Unity qf the
Bible, p. 87 n.).
* Gf. F. Giesebrecht, Jeremia (H.K.), 1894, pp. 16 , B. Duhm, Jeremia (K.H.G.),
1901, pp. 39 , A. S. Peake, Jeremiah (Gent. B.), i, pp. 108 , A. W. Streane,
Jeremiah and Lamentations (Gamb. B.), 1913, pp. 24 f., L. E. Binns, Jeremiah
(West. G.), 1919, pp. 30 f., J. Skinner, Prophecy and Religion, 1922, p. 80, G. A.
Smith, Jeremiah, 3rd ed., 1924, p. 18, 99, P. Volz, Jeremia (K.A.T.), and ed.>
1928, p. 48, F. Notscher, Jeremias (H.S.A.T.), 1934, p. 50, W. Rudolph, Jeremia
(H.A.T.), 1947, pp. 22 ft, A. Weiser, Jeremia (A.T.D.), i, 1952, pp. 35 ff. Weiser
would allow the possibility that the passage is genuinely Jeremianic; he says
(p. 36) : *Es scheint mir deshalb nicht angebracht, diese als unjeremianisch dem
Propheten absprechen zu wollen'. Similarly G. A. Smith, op. cit., p. 99 n., says
that it contains genuine fragments from Jeremiah.
8 Jer. 3.17.
* Ezek. 40 ff. These chapters are denied to Ezekiel altogether by some writers,
while others are prepared to allow that they contain a substantial Ezekielian
element; cf. B. J.JR.Z,., xxxvi, 1953-4, pp. H 6 ff * where I discuss with references
to other writers the modern theories on the book of Ezekiel.
10 Hag. 1.4; Zech. 1.16, 8.9. n Isa. 56.7.
1 38 The of
In recent years much attention has been drawn to the fact
that the prophets whose oracles have been preserved for us in
the prophetic canon were not the only prophets in Israel, and
that prophets and priests are often mentioned together in
intimate connexion, and not seldom brought under the same
condemnation. There were prophets closely associated with the
priests in the cultus of the Temple. These are frequently referred
to as cultic prophets. 1 It has even been argued that all the
prophets were cultic officials and that they belonged to various
orders of diviners. 2 While this goes much too far, it should be
remembered that there were many kinds of prophets, and that
they functioned in a great variety of ways. Sometimes they
functioned singly and sometimes in groups, sometimes in home
or palace, sometimes by the wayside and sometimes in the
shrine. There were inner divisions amongst them, divisions
which concerned the content of their message. Some clearly
stood in closer relation swith the Temple authorities of their day
than did the great pre-exllic prophets whose names are familiar
to us, and they may have had a defined place in the service of
the Temple, though we cannot now define it with precision.
It is believed by many writers that they composed liturgies
for use in the Temple services. Such liturgies have been found by
some scholars in the books of Nahum and Habakkuk and Joel, 3
1 Cf. G. Holscher, Die Profeten, 1914, p. 143, S. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien, iii,
1933, A. Causse, R.H.P.R., vi, 1926, pp. I ff., O. Eissfeldt, Einkitung in das AlU
Testament, pp. 115 ff., and The Old Testament and Modern Study, ed. by H. H,
Rowley, 1951, pp. 119 ff., A. Jepsen, Nabi, 1934, pp. 143 ff, A. R. Johnson, JS.T.,
xtvii, 1935-6, pp. 312 ff. s and The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel, 1944, E.
Wiiithwein, %.A.W. 9 bcii (N.F. xxi), 1950, pp. ro ff., and Z.Th.K., xlix, 1952,
pp. i ff, A. S. Kapelrud, Studia Theologica, iv, 1950-1, pp. 5ff , F. Hesse, %.A.W*,
Ixv (N.F. xxiv), 1953, PP- 45 ff - Cf. also The Servant of the Lord, pp. 104 ff., and
N. W. Porteous, E.T., Ixii, 1950-1, pp. 4 ff. A. Robert (Miscellanea Biblica B.
Ubach (Scripta et Documents, i), 1953, p. 12) declares that Thypothese des
prophetes cultuels est absolutement gratuite*. Cf. also now^K. Roubos, Profetie
en Cultus in IsraSl, 1956 (issued while the present work was in the press).
2 See above, p. 30.
a Gf. P. Humbert, 4.W., xliv (N.F. iii), 1926, pp. 266 ff, A.f.O., v, 1928-9,
pp. 14 ff., R.H.P.R., xii, 1932, pp. i ff.; A. Haldar, Studies in the Book of Nahum,
1947, and S.B.U,, ii, 1952, cols. 417 ff.; E. Balla, in R.G.G., and ed., ii, 1928,
cols. 1556 f.; S. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien, iii, 1923, p. 27; P. Humbert, Problemes
du liore d?Habacuc, 1944, pp. 296 ff.; I. Engnell, S.B.U., i, 1948, cols. 769 ff,
1075 ff*5 Mowinckel, loc. cit., p. 65; A. S. Kapelrud, Joel Studies, 1948 (where the
book is held to be composed in part in the style of a liturgy, though it is not stated
that it was actually employed in the cult) ; J. Steinmann, in Etudes sur Us Pro-
phites d'Israil (Lectio Divina, No. 14), 1954, pp. 171 f. Cf. also P. Haupt, J.B.L.,
xxvi, 1907, pp. i ff., where the first two chapters of Nahum were already said to
be a liturgy, composed to celebrate the victory over Nicanor in 161 B.C.
The Life 139
and even more widely. 1 To them has the
composition of psalms to accompany ritual acts. 1 AU
that we should beware of any simple antithesis pro-
phetic religion and the religion of the Temple, and still more
should we beware of suggesting that prophetic religion could
dispense with the element of worship.
It is true that for Jew and Christian the sacrificial system of
the Temple has come to an end. For the Jew it ceased when the
Temple was destroyed and when it was no longer possible to
offer sacrifices in the one legitimate sanctuary which the Law
allowed. For the Christian it was not abolished by the teaching
of the pre-exilic prophets, but by the death of Christ^ which
gathered into itself the significance of all sacrifice by MfiMing
the Old Testament prophecy of the sacrifice of the Servant of
the Lord, where the highest point of Old Testament sacrifice is
found. There is nothing to indicate that Jesus regarded sacrifices
as in itself alien to the will of God. He would not have told
cleansed lepers to go and offer sacrifice 3 if he had believed it to
be displeasing to God. Paul certainly did not regard sacrifice as
evil, and as a Jew he continued to observe the sacrificial law. 4
Yet he did not seek to impose the law of sacrifice on Gentile
Christians, because he realized that for the Church sacrifice was
abrogated in the death of Christ.
Moreover, Judaism had developed another centre of wor-
ship long before the Temple was destroyed. It had developed the
Synagogue. It is a surprising fact that we do not know how or
when the Synagogue came into being, and the institution which
has meant so much to both Judaism and Christianity, since its
worship formed the basis of Christian worship as well as
Jewish, came unheralded into the world. It is commonly be-
lieved that it was during the period of the exile that it had its
1 Gf. H. Gunkel, %.A.W., xlii (N.F. i), 1924, pp. 177 ff. (Isa.33), and What Remains
of the Old Testament, E. Tr. by A. K. Dallas, 1928, pp. 115 ff. (the end of Micah;
cf. Kapelrud, S.B.U., ii, 1952, cols. 278 f.); G. Gerleman, Zephanja textkritisch
tmd literarisch wtersucht, 1942 (Zephaniah) ; I. Engnell, B.J.R.L., xxxi, 1948, p. 64,
and S.B.U., i, col. 1032 (Dcutero-Isaiah a prophetic imitation of a cult liturgy).
In S.B.U., ii, cols. 763 ff., Engnell classifies prophecy as cither diwan-typc or
liturgy-type.
1 Cf. J. P. Peters, The Psalms as Liturgies, 1922; G. G. Keet, A Liturgical Study of the
Psalter, 1928; S. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien, ii, 1922, iii, 1923 and Religion und
Kultus t German Tr. by A. Schauer, 1953, pp. 1 15 ff.; H. Gunkel, EwMtwrtg m dm
Psalmen(H.K.), 1933, pp. 10 ff.; A. Causse, Lesplus mewe Chants de la Bible, 1926,
pp. 79 ff.; A. G. Welch, Prophet and Priest in Old Israel, 1936, pp. 131 ff.
4 Luke 17.14. * Cf. Acts 21.26, 25.8, 28.17,
1 40 The Faith of Israel
first beginnings, and that It was In Babylonia that the exiles
first began to gather together for mutual comfort and exhorta-
tion and to cherish the faith they had so imperfectly cherished
in their own land. 1 Of this there can be no certainty. It is be-
lieved that the earliest known evidence of the existence of a
synagogue comes from the end of the fifth century B.C., and
from outside Palestine, though not from Babylonia. 2 It may
well be that it began in some simple way in a private home,
and that when it was found to minister to a need it grew, and
that later the exiles brought back this institution to Palestine
when they returned. Certain it is that in the post-exilic days the
synagogue would be found to minister to a need which could
hardly have been felt in the same way in pre-exilic days. In
those days there was a multiplicity of shrines throughout the
land, to which men commonly resorted. In the days of Heze-
Hah's reform all were closed throughout Judah, save the
Jerusalem Temple,* but that reform could not have lasted long.
It was the political side of the revolt against Assyria which
proved disastrous, even though Jerusalem was spared, and it
is certain that in the reign of Manasseh the old position was
restored. Again in the time of Josiah there was a new bid for
independence, with a religious reform associated with it. 4 This
1 Cf. A. Menes, Z.A.W., I (N.F. ix), 1932, pp. 268 ff.; also E. Schiirer, History of
the Jewish People, II ii, 1890, pp. 53 ff, (4th German ed., ii, 1907, pp. 498 ff.),
W. Bacher, J.JE., xi, 1905, p. 619, G. F. Moore, Judaism, i, 1927, p. 283. Bousset-
Gressmann, Die Religion des Judmtums in spathellenistischm Zjdtalter, 3rd ed., 1926,
p. 172, put its origin much later, in the Hellenistic period, and claim that it was
not known in Palestine in the time of the Chronicler. So also Oesterley and Box,
The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, 191 1, p. 337.
a Cf. B.A.S.O.R., No. 84, December 1941, pp. 4 f., where G. G. Torrey reads b&ih
k*ri$hah = 'synagogue* on an ostracon from Elath, which W. F. Albright (ibid.,
No. 82, April 1941, pp. ii ff.) dates at the end of the sixth century B.C.
s II Kings 18.4 ff. Many scholars deny the historicity of this reform; so J. Well-
hausen, Prolegomena, E. Tr., p. 25, B. Stade, Geschkhte des Volkes Israel, 2nd ed.,
i, 1889, p. 607, G. Holscher, Geschichte des israelitischen undjudischen Religion, 1922,
p. 99, H. Schmidt, in S.A.T., II ii, 2nd ed., 1923, pp. 9 f. Others find no reason
to deny it; so C. Steuernagel, Deuteronomium (H.K.), 1898, p. xiv, R. Kittel,
Geschkhte des Volkes Israel, ii, 7th ed., 1925, pp. 375 f., A.-R. Siebens, VOrigine du
Code deuteronomique, 1929, pp. 156 ffe, Oesterley and Robinson, History of Israel,
i, 1932, pp. 392 f., G. Ricciotti, Storia d* Israel*, i, 2nd ed., 1934, pp. 443 f. (E. Tr.
by G. della Penta and R.T.A. Murphy, 1955, pp. 372 f.), W. F. Albright, The
Biblical Period, 1950, p. 42. With these latter I stand; cf. The Relevance of
Apocalyptic, 2nd ed., p. 15.
4 II Kings 22 f. Again some scholars have denied the historical value of the story
of Josiah's centralization of the worship in Jerusalem; so L. Horst, R.H.R., xvii,
1888, pp. ii ff., M. Vemes, Precis d'histoire juiue, 1889, p. 795 n. G. Holscher,
while allowing a measure of reform to Josiah (cf. Eucharisterion (Gunkel Fest-
schrift), i, 1923, pp. 206 ff.) thinks the account in II Kings has been much em-
Tim Life 141
time it spread beyond the bounds of Judah. 1 But inde-
pendence was not achieved, and the reform was not It
was therefore only for brief periods in the prc-cxilic
there was only one legitimate place of worship
In post-exile days, however, we hear little of the country
shrineSj though we do not know when they faded out or were
abolished. Whenever it was that they ceased to function the
need for some local centre of worship would be felt. It has
maintained that the synagogue began as a secular meeting
place before it was used as a centre of worship. 2 But however
that may be s it is certain that in the post-exilic age it became
established as a centre of local worship, without sacrificial
cultus, and that by New Testament times it was found not
alone in Palestine, but wherever there were Jewish com-
munities. That its worship included the reading of Scripture
and exhortation we know from the Gospels, 8 and similarly that
it was a place of prayer. 4 Through its worship the faith of men
was nourished, and through its reading of the Scriptures men
were reminded of the demand of the faith of Israel for the ex-
pression of devotion in life as well as in worship. We know that
our Lord valued its worship, and that he was found in the
synagogue 5 as well as in the Temple, and that it became the
model which was adapted for the worship of the Church.
Nor should we forget the institution of the Sabbath. It has
already been said that the Sabbath figures in the Ritual
Decalogue of Ex. 34 as well as in the familiar Decalogue of
bellished (.A.W. } xl, 1922, pp. 227 ff.); cf. E. Havet, Le Christianisme et ses
Origines, iii, 1878, pp. 32 ff., R. H. Kennett. The Church of Israel, 1938, pp. 83 ff.
(first published in 1920), F. Horst, .D.M.G., Ixxvii, 1923, pp. 220 ff., A. Loisy,
La Religion a" Israel, 3rd ed., 1933, pp. 200 f. On this view cf. L. B. Paton, J.B.I.,
xlvii, 1928, pp. 326 ff. Most scholars, however, accept the historicity of the
account in II Kings, and I share that view; cf. Studies in Old Testament Prophecy,
ed. by H. H. Rowley, 1950, pp. 161 ff.
1 I find no reason to doubt that Josiah carried his reform to the north, at least as
far as Bethel, which is mentioned in II Kings 23.15 ff. Gf. ibid., pp. 165 f.
2 So S. Zeitlin, P.A.A.J.R., ii, 1931, pp. 69 ff.
3 Luke 4.16 ff.
* Matt. 6.5; cf. Acts 16.13, where, however, the 'place of prayer' does not seem to
have been a synagogue (cf. F. F. Bruce, The Acts of^the Apostles, 1951, p. 314),
though the term is often used for synagogue (cf. ibid,, p. 155). Cf. Strack-
Billerbeck, Kommentar %um Neuen Testament aits Talmud vnd Midrasck, i, 1922,
p. 397: 'Ausserhalb Jerusalems kamen als Gebetsstatten in ersten Linie die
Synagogen in Betracht'j cf. also ibid., pp. 398 f.
6 Luke 4.16 *as his custom was*.
1 42 The of
Ex. 20. 1 have also said that I believe the Ritual Decalogue was
a pre-Mosaic formula, which belonged to the worship of
Yahweh before the time of Moses. I therefore accept the
Sabbath as a very ancient institution. 1 That it was a religious
institution is clear from its inclusion in the Decalogue, but the
only provision given is that it was to be a day of rest from work.
Its holiness consisted in the tabu against any sort of work which
belonged to it. Yet it must quite early have developed into a day
of religious worship. The Ritual Decalogue does not call upon
men to worship on that day. It demands that aH males should
appear before the Lord three times a year,* and says nothing
about a weekly summons to worship. But we know from the
story of the murder of Athaliah and the enthronement of
Joash 3 that it was a day on which large numbers resorted to the
Temple. For we find that the royal guard was divided into three
companies, of which two appear to have guarded the palace and
one the Temple on ordinary days, but on Sabbath days to have
changed over, so that the two companies were in the temple.
Quite early, therefore, the Sabbath was associated with the
worship of the Temple, and hence it was natural that when the
synagogue came into being as a local centre of worship, it
should be resorted to especially on the Sabbath.
The worship of the Temple consisted of more than sacrifice.
It consisted, indeed, of more than organized worship. In the
fellowship of its courts there was opportunity for religious
address, such as the prophets sometimes gave, or such as Jesus
gave. But the organized worship included more than sacrifice.
From the work of the Chronicler we learn that in the post-
exilic age there was a carefully regulated musical element in
its worship, and it is probable that this already held in the pre-
1 C B.J.R.L.) xxxiv, 1951-2, pp. 109 ff., where references to some of the con-
siderable literature on this question may be found. Some scholars hold the
Sabbath to be a post-Mosaic institution, and on that account argue that the
Decalogue is post-Mosaic; so J. G. Matthes, %.A.W., xxiv, 1904, pp. 31 ff.,
S. Mowinckel, Le Dialogue, 1927, pp. 75 ff. The fact that the Sabbath law is
found in Ex. 34.21, which is assigned to J, and in Ex. 23.12, which is assigned to
E, as well as in the Decalogue of Ex. 20 and Deut. 5, where the different ex-
pansions are evidence that the present texts rest on an older form, seems to me to
witness to the antiquity of the Sabbath as an institution. Ex. 16.29 zu ' so offers
evidence of a weekly sabbath, and this is commonly assigned to the oldest strand
of the Pentateuch. Other scholars who hold that the Sabbath was pre-Mosaic
include B. D. Eerdmans, in Vom Alton Testament (Marti Festschrift, B.Z.A.W.,
No. 41), 1925, pp. 69 f., and K. Budde, J.T.5., xxx, 1928-9, pp. u ff.
8 Ex. 34.23. * II Kings 1 1.4 ff.
The Good Life 143
exilic age. Indeed, it is clear from Amos's of the
noise of songs and the melody of viols 1 that in
the pre-exiMc worship of the shrines. Much recent of the
Psalter leads to the view that the were to
accompany ritual acts, both to interpret the significance of the
ritual to those present, and to call forth from them the spirit
that would make the ritual act the expression of their
and will. 2 While it is hard to define the precise age of any parti-
cular psalm, it is believed that there is a substantial pre-exilic
element in the Psalter. The prophets denounced those who came
with proud hearts to the Temple from their harsh and selfish
ways, who offered splendid sacrifices that were not the organ
of their spirit, and who really cared little for the will of God in
their daily lives. Their worship was a hollow pretence and
offensive in the eyes of God. But there was that in its worship
which could nurture the spirit of the sincere and the humble,
and could lift into the spirit of God those who truly desired to
walk in his way. Had there not been it is hard to understand
why Jesus should have resorted to its courts. Moreover,
Simeon, who is said to have been 'righteous and devout, look-
ing for the consolation of Israel', and on whom the Holy Spirit
rested, 8 seems to have found within its precincts that which
enriched and fed his spirit, as also did Anna. 4 Nowhere in the
Bible is the good life presented as the life that despises the true
worship of God's house. Certainly the psalmists did not despise
it, and their hymns have been able to inspire devotion of spirit
down to our own day. 'Q Yahweh, I love the habitation of thy
house,' cried one, 'And the place where thy glory dwells,' 5
while another sang 'A day in thy courts is better than a thou-
sand elsewhere.' 6 The same psalm says 'My soul longs, yea,
faints for the courts of Yahweh,' 7 and another psalmist voices
the desire that he might dwell in the house of Yahweh all the
days of his life. 8 Such texts might be multiplied, and they testify
to the place that the corporate worship was perceived to be
1 Amos 5.23.
* Cf. especially A. C. Welch, op. cit., pp. 103 ff. For a good account of the various
sides of modern study of the Psalter cf. A. R. Johnson, in The Old Testament and
Modern Study, ed. by H, H. Rowley, pp. 162 ff., and J. J. Stamm, Th.R., N.F.
xxiii, 1955, PP- l ff -
8 Luke 2.25. 4 Luke 2.37. 5 Ps. 26.8.
Ps. 84.10 (Heb. 11). 7 Ps. 84.2 (Heb. 3), 8 Ps. 27.4.
1 44 The of
capable of playing In the life of those who really cherished the
faith of Israel and who desired to live the good life.
That the Temple, as well as the synagogue, was a place of
prayer is clear from both Testaments. Within the precincts of
the Shiloh shrine Hannah offered her private prayer, 1 and the
New Testament presents us with the parable of the two men
who went up into the Temple to pray. 2 The text *My house shall
be called a house of prayer for all peoples* 8 has already been
cited. How far corporate prayer entered into the worship of the
Temple is not very clear. The Code of Deuteronomy prescribes
a form of prayer to be used in the Temple on a particular
occasion/ but does not indicate whether it was to be individu-
ally used or used together. This does not prove that prayer was
a regular feature of the daily or weekly worship. From the New
Testament, however, we learn that Teter and John were going
up into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth
hour 5 . 5 This makes it quite clear that by New Testament times
there was an hour when men gathered together in the temple
for prayer, and this would appear to be for corporate prayer.
But if the view already mentioned is correct, and the psalms
were used in the ordered worship of the Temple, then prayer
had no little part in that worship. For many of the psalms are
prayers. Some of them appear to be individual prayers, while
others appear to be for corporate use, and sometimes we find
swift transitions from one to the other. This is not an isolated
phenomenon in the Old Testament. In the book of
Deuteronomy we find swift transitions from the second person
singular to the second person plural, so that some scholars
have supposed that it rested on separate sources, 6 each marked
by its own usage. This is a needless hypothesis. Once we have
entered into the Hebrew spirit we are not troubled by these
transitions, either in Deuteronomy or in the prophets, where
similar transitions are found, or in the Psalter. Certain it is that
in the psalms we find a great variety of human aspirations and
desires voiced, and they could well be the vehicle of the expres-
sion of men's needs as they approached God, whether associated
1 1 Sam. i.i i. * Luke 18.10. * Isa. 56.7.
4 Deiit. 26.1-11. On this passage cf. A. G. Welch, op. cit., pp. list ff.
& Acts 3.1,
8 So G. Steuernagel, Das Deutermomiim (H.K.), 1898, pp. i ff.; cf. G. A. Smith,
Deuteronomy (Camb. B.), 1918, pp. Ixxiii ff.
The Life 145
with a sacrifice which symbolized the or on the
alone. 1
Worship is not all prayer,, 1 and prayer is not all for
boons. Every side of worship is in the and
elsewhere in the Old Testament. The of awe in Gkxfs
presence and of adoration of Ms majesty is in many
passages. 'Remove thy shoes from thy feet, for the place where-
on thou standest is holy ground/ 8 'Holy, holy, holy is Yahwch
of hosts: the whole earth is foil of his glory. 54 "Come let us
worship and bow down; Let us kneel before Yahweh our
Maker.* 5 'When I look at thy heavens, the work of thy fingers,
The moon and the stars, which thou hast ordered;* What is
man that thou shouldst think of Mm? And the son of man
that thou shouldst care for him?' 7 'Let all the earth fear
Yahweh: Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe
of him.' 8
The feeling of awe in God's presence begets the sense of un-
worthiness and sin, as it did in Isaiah in the moment of his call.
For God is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity/ and the sinner
who is really conscious of the presence of God must ever be con-
scious of his sin. He knows that he cannot conceal from the eye
of God his inmost heart. c Thou hast set our iniquities before
thee, Our hidden faults in the light of thy countenance.* 10
That consciousness of sin calls forth confession, and confession
is followed by the cry for cleansing, 11 that the miracle wrought
in Isaiah may be repeated in others. 'Against thee, thee only,
have I sinned. And done that which is evil in thy sight.' 12
'Have mercy on me, O God, according to thy lovingMndness:
According to the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my
transgressions . . . Create in me a clean heart, O God; And
1 Gf. H. Gunkel, What Remains of the Old Testament, E. Tr., p. 114: 'Whoever
earnestly studies these poems will not fail to find many passages which give
perfect expression to true religion, and generations still to come will humbly
bend the knee on this holy ground and learn from the Hebrew psalmists how to
pray.*
2 On prayer in the Bible cf. O. Piper, Interpretation, viii, 1954, pp. 3 ff., and F. V.
Filson, ibid., pp. 21 ff.
8 Ex. 3.5. 4 Isa. 6.3. Ps. 95.6.
6 The Hebrew word here means 'established according to a fixed order*.
7 Ps. 8.3 f. (Hcb-4f.).
8 Ps. 33.8. 8 Hab. 1.13. 10 Ps. 90.8.
ll On the penitential psalms cf. G. Bernini, Le Preghiere penitm&ali del Salterio
(Analecta Gregoriana, bcii, Ser. Fac. Theol., A 9), 1953.
12 Ps. 51.4 (Heb. 6).
1 46 The Faiik of Israel
renew a right 1 spirit within me/ s c For thy name's sake, O
Yahweh, Pardon mine iniquity, though it is great/ 8
Here men are fortified with the assurance that such prayers
have found their answer. The Lord is near to the broken
hearted* And saves those who are of contrite spirit. 94 They may
continue to stand in his presence, and find in it fullness of joy.
s With thee is the fountain of life: in thy light we see light/ 5
'Yahweh is the fortress of my life/ 6 *He who dwells in the
secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of
the Almighty.' 7
Richly does the element of praise enter into the spirit of
worship as it is reflected in the Bible. 6 I will bless Yahweh at all
times: His praise shall continually be in my mouth.' 8 'Bless
Yahweh, O my soul; And all that is within me, bless his holy
name.* 9 e lt is a good thing to give thanks to Yahweh, And to
sing praises to thy name, O Most High/ 10 'Come, let us sing
unto Yahweh: Let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our
salvation.' 11 *Sing to Yahweh a new song: Sing to Yahweh, all
the earth/ 12 TMs praise is often shot with thanksgiving. For
when blessing is received from the hand of God, it should be
acknowledged with thankfulness. 'I sought Yahweh, and he
answered me. And delivered me from all that I dreaded/ 13 'O
that men would praise Yahweh for his goodness, And for his
wonderful works to the children of men/ 14 'Enter his gates with
thanksgiving, And his courts with praise/ 15
Again and again we find holy aspiration fostered by the
words of the psalms. 'Shew me thy ways, O Yahweh; teach me
thy paths/ 18 Teach me to do thy will; for thou art my God/ 17
'Teach me thy way, O Yahweh; And lead me in the right 18
path/ 19 *With my whole heart have I sought thee: Let me not
1 The Hebrew word here is from the same root as the word used above in Ps. 8.3 ;
it therefore means a spirit which is steadfast in its loyalty here.
* Ps. 51.1, 10 (Heb. 3, 12).
s Ps, 25.11. 4 Ps. 34.18 (Heb. 19). * Ps. 36.9 (Heb. 10).
* Ps. 27.1. 7 Ps. 91.1. * Ps. 34.1 (Heb. 2). * Ps. 103.1.
10 Ps. 92.1 (Heb. a). u Ps. 95.1. M Ps. 96.1. "Ps. 344 (Heb. 5).
14 Ps. 107.8. ^Ps. 100.4. "Ps. 25.4. 17 Ps. 143.10.
1 The meaning here may be 'in a path which is free from obstacles or unevenness*
(cf. R.S.V. *on a level path') or 'in the way of uprightness 1 . For the latter sense
cf. Isa. 1 1.4, Ps. 45.6 (Heb. 7), 67.4 (Heb. 5), where the same word occurs and is
rendered by 'equity*. In those passages the word clearly carries some ethical
content, and since it stands here parallel to the way of Yahweh, it seems likejy
that it does here.
lt Ps. 27.11.
Good 1 47
wander from thy commandments/ 1 s Incline my to thy
testimonies^ And not to unjust gain. 52
All these and yet other elements of worehip are
expressed in the words of the Bible, and it would be to
multiply many times the few examples that have been given*
For worship is an integral element of the good Mfe in the
of the Bible. It is only they who maintain right relationship
with God who can do his will. It is only they who go in the
strength of the Lord God, and not they who walk in the
strength of their own resolve, who can fulfil the law of God.
When prophets declaimed against the evils of their time* and
stigmatized the worship of men as vain, it was because they per-
ceived that the spirit must give meaning to the act, and not
because they advocated a religion without worship. Nor should
we forget, when we are inclined to think of pmt-exilic Judaism
as hard and legal and unspiritual, that it was in the post-
exilic days that the rich treasury of the Psalter was gathered
together, and that it was employed in the worship of Judaism.
Worship and life must belong together, the one as leading to
the other and the other as expressing the one. It is but a dis-
tortion of the teaching of the Bible which concentrates on cer-
tain elements of the teaching of the Prophets and ignores all
else, which forgets all the rich heritage of the Psalter while
cherishing the social message of the Prophets.
Much that is in the Psalter can be used privately to direct
and nurture our spirit. It is probable that it was collected
primarily for the public worship. But the Bible never thinks of
worship as limited to the sanctuary, or God's fellowship as
something to be enjoyed only in the corporate fellowship of Ms
house. Private worship and prayer, a fellowship with God that
can be enjoyed anywhere, are everywhere recognized. Joseph
could know the presence of the Lord in a prison, 3 and Jeremiah
in a cistern. 4 It was not limited to fellowship in formulated
prayer, though it could express itself in prayer. For private
prayer, whether in the sanctuary or elsewhere, is throughout
the Bible an expression of religion. Nehemiah could pray in the
king's palace 5 and Daniel in his own home; e Hezekiah could
pray on what he believed to be his death-bed, 7 and Jonah in
1 Ps. 119.10. * Ps. 119.36. * Gen. 39.21. 4 Jer. 38.6 ff.; cf. 1.8.
6 Neh. 2.4. e Dan. 6.10. 7 II Kings 120.3; Isa. 38.3.
148 The of
the belly of the great fish. 1 Similarly our Lord could pray on the
mountain top* 2 or in the Garden of Gethsemane. 3 Prayer is not
limited to this place or that. And by the same token, the com-
munion of the spirit with God, whereby the riches of his grace
and the strength of his spirit might be received, was not be-
lieved to be limited to particular spots, however sacred they
might be.
That the prophets knew the riches of God's fellowship in
their private life can scarcely be gainsaid. Amos's intimacy
with God is represented in the form of conversations which he
had with God, 4 and the same is true of Jeremiah. Especially
intimate was the fellowship of Jeremiah with God, and some of
Ms prayers are preserved. These passages, sometimes referred
to as the 'Confessions of Jeremiah 5 / are described by Skinner as
'the outpouring of his heart to One who seeth in secret and can
reward openly.* 6 Of them Skinner observes that if they had
perished, 'the devotion of the Jewish Church would have been
immeasurably poorer in that strain of personal piety which
saves its religion from degenerating into a soulless legalism.' 7
There is no evidence that any of these passages had anything to
do with the Temple. They belonged to the private religious life
of the prophet.
Even where we have no record of any such experience, we
may still be sure that the prophets valued and knew an inner
experience of fellowship with God. They would not have urged
men to seek God, and to walk humbly with Mm, if they had not
conceived of religion in terms of fellowship as well as etMcs.
They would not have represented their message as given to
them by God, and themselves as men who were privileged to sit
in to hear the secrets of God, if they had not known a rich
intimacy with Mm. TMs intimacy was something deeper than
any forms of worsMp, and that it was more fundamental than
any forms cannot be doubted. It could be enjoyed anywhere,
since God was everywhere.
1 Jonah 2.1.
a Mark 646, Luke 6.12, 9.28.
3 Mark 14.32 ff., Matt. 26.36 ff.; Luke 22.40 ff.
4 Amos 7.1 ff., 8.1 ff.
s Gf. J. Skinner, Prophecy and Religion, pp. 201 ff., E. A. Leslie, The Intimate Papers
of Jeremiah, 1953, and J. Leclercq, *Les "Confessions" de J6r&nie', in Etudes sur
les Prophttes d'lsrafl (Lectio Divina 14), 1954, pp. in ff.
9 Op. cit., p. 213. 7 Ibid., pp. 201 f.
The Life 149
The good life, then, as it is to us in the
Testament is the life that is lived in harmony with God's
and that expresses itself in daily life in the of the
character of God translated into the of human
ence,, that draws its inspiration and its strength com-
munion with God in the fellowship of his people and in private
experience, and that knows how to worship and praise
in public and in the solitude of the heart.
VI
DEATH AND BEYOND 1
IN an earlier lecture It has been said that man is conceived of
in the Bible as having an animated body, and as created for the
fellowship and obedience of God. He is like the animals in
having an animated body; yet he has something denied to the
animals in that he alone is in the image of God. It has not yet
been noted that he is also mortal, appointed for death. In the
story of the Garden of Eden he is turned out of Paradise lest he
stretch out his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat,
and live for ever.' 2 To him God says 'Dust thou art, and to dust
thou shalt return.' 8 This is true also of the animal creation.
Concerning the lower creatures the psalmist says 'When Thou
takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.' 4
Man and animals alike are born and die. c Who is the man who
will live and not see death ? >s cries another psalmist, while a
more familiar psalm says 'We bring our years to an end as a
sigh. 6 The days of our years are threescore years and ten, Or if
we are especially strong fourscore years; Yet their greater part 7
1 The substance of this chapter was given as the Drew Lecture on Immortality
for New College, London, in 1954, and published in C.Q,., xxxiii, 1955, pp. z z6 ft.
The passages in the present lecture which are in verbal agreement with the
Drew Lecture are repeated by permission of the Trustees of the Drew Lectureship.
a Gen. 3.22. 3 Gen. 3.19. 4 Ps. 104.29.
5 Ps, 89.48 (Heb. 49). Cf. Ecclus. 17.30: 'The son of man is not immortal*. Some
MSS have a contradiction of this in 19.19: "They who do the things pleasing to
him will gather the fruit of the tree of immortality*. But they are not important
MSS and the verse is omitted from R.V., and not even cited in the margin. The
text is given in A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta, ii, 1935, p. 409 n.
* R.V. *as a tale that is told* ; cf. Jerome, quasi sermonem loquens (H. de Sainte-
Marie, Sancti Huronymi Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos, 1954, p. 131). The Syriac has
*as a spider", and LXX has a double rendering c as a spider have meditated* (cf.
Vulgate, sicut aroma meditabimtur) . Kissane (The Book of Psalms, ii, 1954, pp. 102,
104) offers a conjectural emendation, which yields the sense 'in sorrow*.
7 The Hebrew has here a word found nowhere else, which R.V. renders by 'their
pride*. But most editors prefer the reading which seems to lie behind LXX,
Syriac and Targum, and which lacks one letter of the Massoretic text and yields
the above rendering. Kissane (op. cit., p. 102) prefers a conjectural expansion of
the Massoretic text, to yield 'much in them*. Other emendations have been pro-
posed, but they are neither convincing nor necessary.
150
and i 5 i
Is but toil and sorrow; For It is we ly away/ 1
This is all but a matter of experience, of the
of Israel. The melancholy fact of be by
men everywhere, and Its shadow lies over all. The breath of
man's nostrils must one day cease, and Ms body Me cold and still,
It Is in the interpretation of the significance of death that
faith figures, and in the thought of what follows death. Is It the
end of man's existence, a terminus beyond which nothing lies?
In Indian thought it is followed by rebirth to life In some form
on earth, the Inexorable law of karma determining the nature of
that reincarnation, and in Buddhism men are offered the hope
of breaking the weary round of sanisam in the endless peace of
Nirvana. In biblical thought we find none of this. For here life
is held to be a blessing and not a curse, and Its possession is
wistfully desired so long as may be* Yet though long life is
counted an element in the desirable lot of the blessed. It must
have a limit and the grave claim all men. But beyond the grave
what?
In the New Testament we find a rich, though not clearly
defined, faith. *If in this life only we have hoped In Christ, we
are of all men most pitiable.' 2 *I looked, and behold^ a great
multitude, which no man could number, out of every nation,
and of all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the
throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes . . .
These are they who have come out of the great tribulation, and
have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of
the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God; and
they serve him day and night in his Temple.* Here and in
many other passages we find expressed the faith that beyond
the grave lies an existence that far surpasses anything we know
In this life, so that death becomes not an enemy, but the gate to
a larger life. That faith is expressed in diverse forms. 4 It may be
1 Ps. 90.9 f.
2 I Cor. 15.19. R.S.V. has: *If in this life we who are in Christ have only hope*,
and similarly J. MofFatt: 'If in this life we have nothing but a mere hope in
Christ*. So G. G. Findlay, The Expositor's Greek Testament, ii, p. 925 a. J. Hiring
(La Premiere pitre de S. Paul aux Corinthians (C.N.T.), 1949, PP- *37 ) defends the
rendering: *si c'est seulement dans les limites de cette vie que nous eussions plac6
notre esperance en Christ*. Cf. H. D. Wendland, Die Briefe an die Korinther
(N.T.D.), 6th ed., 1954, p. 125.
8 Rev. 7.9, 14 f.
4 On the diversity of view found in the New Testament, cf. R. H. Charles, A
Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, and ed., 1913, pp. 401 ff.
1 52 TTu Faith of Israel
thought of as a resurrection of the body, or as Immortal bliss in
another state. s lf the dead are not raised/ says Paul, s neither
hath Christ been raised : and if Christ hath not been raised,
your faith is vain/ 1 That this is to life on earth is clearly indi-
cated in some passages. In the Apocalypse the first resurrection
is to share the millennial reign of Christ on earth, 2 and the
second resurrection is to life in the New Jerusalem, which is
represented as coming down out of heaven, and therefore to
earth. a 'Since we believe that Jesus died and rose again/ says
Paul in another passage, *even so them also who are fallen
asleep in Jesus will God bring with him . . . We who are
alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will in no wise
take precedence of those who are fallen asleep. For the Lord
Mmself will descend from heaven . . . and the dead in Christ
will rise first: then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught
up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the
air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.' 4 Here it is not clear
whether the unending fellowship with the Lord is thought of as
on earth or elsewhere. 5 In other passages the latter is clearly
indicated, @ Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God,
believe also in me. In my Father's house are many dwelling
places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to
prepare a place for you.' 7 In writing to the Philippians Paul
could say that he had a desire to depart and be with Christ,
but it was more expedient for the Philippians that he should
continue here. 8 Clearly Paul did not contemplate any waiting
till the day of Judgement and Resurrection when he wrote this,
but thought of an immediate translation into the presence of
Christ, and therefore to the presence of God, since Christ is
elsewhere said to be seated at the right hand of God. 9
1 1 Cor. 15.16 f. * Rev. 20.4. s Rev. 21.1 f. 4 I Thess. 4.14 ff.
* J. Moffatt (The Expositor's Greek Testament, iv, p. 38 b) says: *Plainly, however,
the saints do not rise at once to heaven, but return with the Lord to the scene of
his final manifestation on earth'. Charles (op. cit., p. 444) thinks the scene of their
blessedness is a transformed heaven and earth.
* R. H. Charles (op. cit., pp. 437 ff.) distinguishes four separate stages in the
thought of Paul.
7 John 14.1. R.S.V., following Moffatt and others, has: *If it were not so, would I
have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?* So H. Strathmann, Das
Evangeliwn nach Johannes (N.T.D.), 6th ed., 1951, p. 203. M.-J. Lagrange
(vangtte selon S. Jean (E. Bib.), 7th ed., 19418, p. 373), retains and defends the
interpretation of R. V. given above.
8 Phil. x.23f.;cf.nCor. 5 .8.
9 Rom. 8.34; Eph. 1.20; Col. 3.1; Heb. 1.3,8.1, 10.12, 12.2; I Peter 3.22; Rev. 3.21.
and i 53
In the Old Testament, on the we a less
embrace of the hope of any life
here or elsewhere. The of the belief In the
tion are to be found here s -to provide the of the New
Testament thought along this Hue. But
quite late in the development of Old Testament thought,
we know from the New Testament that the Sadducees
any doctrine of resurrection* During the inter-testamenta!
period the hope of a resurrection had grown in certain circles, 1
and it became an accepted element of the faith of the Pharisees. 1
Apart from these first expressions of a faith in the raurrection,
it is sometimes maintained that no inklings of a worth-while
afterlife are to be found |n the Old Testament^ and the contrast
between the Old Testaitient and the New is found to be marked,
While the differences between the two Testaments are not to be
ignored or minimized, it will be seen that the contrast is not
quite so strong as is supposed, and the seeds of every side of
New Testament thought are to be found here?
We must beware, however, of going to the opposite extreme,
A recent writer 4 has read back a sure faith in the resurrection
to the beginnings of the Old Testament story* He maintains
that 'nothing less than resurrection was in the mind of Abraham
and of all the faithful after him*. 6 This is a bold proposition,
which rests on the argument that the promise of the land to
* Gf. II Mac. 7.9, ii, 14, 14.46. In the works commonly subsumed under the term
Pseudepigrapha there are many more references to this belief. Some are dealt
with in E. F. Sutcliffe, The Old Testament and the Future Life, 1946, pp. 167 f, and
a number of additional passages are referred to in my Relevance of Apocalyptic,
and ed., pp. 55, 60, 67 f., 73, 79, 99, 101, 105, 106 f., 108. R. H. Charles (The
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ii, 1913, p. 218) observes that
there are three Jewish doctrines of the resurrection: i. All Israelites are to rise;
2. All righteous Israelites are to rise; 3. All mankind are to rise.
2 Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, op. cit., i, 1922, pp. 893 ff.
3 J. N. Schofield, Archaeology and the Afterlife, 1951, emphasizes the variety of view
found in the Old Testament, and relates the Old Testament evidence to that
provided by archaeology, arguing that funeral and mourning customs point to a
belief in survival after death.
4 Gf. N. A. Logan, S.J.T., vi, 1953, pp. 165 ff.
5 Ibid., p. 169. E. F. Sutcliffe (Scripture, ii, 1947, p. 94) with more justification
says: *There has been a tendency to take it for granted that, like ourselves,
Abraham, Moses, David and the other great men of God of the Old Testament
looked forward to a judgment of their lives by God after death with a consequent
apportionment of reward or punishment. But an attentive reading of the Old
Testament shows that this is a mistaken notion and that for many centuries the
religious life of the patriarchs and of the people of Israel was based exclusively
on God's government of the world during the course of men's pilgrimage on this
earth.'
1 54 The Faith of Israel
Abraham and Ms seed implies the belief that he should be raised
to share in the inheritance. To interpret God's pledge of the
promised land to Abraham and his seed as being anything else
than a pledge of ultimate and everlasting possession to each and
all of them is to rob it of all substance and makes sheer nonsense
of the patriarchal faith/ says this writer. 1 It surely makes greater
nonsense of it to suppose that Abraham and all Ms seed have yet
to be raised to live in Palestine under conditions of serious over-
crowding, and it would be simpler to spiritualize the promise
with the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 'But now they
desire a better country, that is, a heavenly'. 2 It is a common-
place of Hebrew thought that a man was conceived of as living
in Ms descendants, who were an extension of his personality, so
that in the giving of the land to the descendants of Abraham it
could be said to be given to him, and there is no occasion to
read back a faith in the resurrection by this forced interpreta-
tion. WitMn the Old Testament there is much variety, and even
inconsistency, of view on what follows death, and it is impossible
to attribute every statement directly to God, let alone to press
it in forced and fantastic ways. That divine revelation is
mediated through the Old Testament I am profoundly
assured, as I said in my first lecture. But that revelation was
mediated through human and fallible personality, and it is
perilous to ascribe every statement directly to God. To do so
woulci mean to equate God's revelation of himself with man's
apprehension of that revelation, and to bring God down to the
level of men's understanding of his nature and his will. All the
variety of view of the afterlife contained in the Old Testament
does not reveal the vacillating and uncertain mind of God, but
the imperfect apprehension by men of the truth wMch is
Mdden in God's heart.
It has already been said that there is no trace of a belief in
reincarnation in the Old Testament, but that there is in the
later period a belief in the resurrection. There is also some
trace of a belief in immortal bliss in another existence. It is
1 Loc. cit., p. 170. This argument is not new, indeed. As its rabbinic character
suggests, it was already found among the Rabbis, where it stands in TB San-
hedrin 90 b. D. S. Margoliouth cited it with approval in The Expositor, 8th series,
x, 1920, p. 105, It is a little surprising to find rabbinic principles of exegesis
seriously revived in the twentieth century.
*Heb. 11.16.
and 155
sometimes maintained that a in the of the
soul reiects Greek thought, and that it is alien to the
of the Hebrews. 1 While there are important differences between
Greek and Hebrew thought, a belief in immortality is to be
found in the Old Testament.
In the earliest of the main sources of the Pentateuch we have
the story of Adam's ejection from the Garden of Eden, lest he
should put forth his hand and partake of the fruit of the tree of
life, 2 Here the thought is of immortality in Ms physical form*
He is assured that he is appointed for death* and that Ms body
must return to the dust whence it was taken. This does not
necessarily mean the complete dissolution of Ms being, and
there is no evidence that it was ever part of the faith of Israel
that a man wholly ceased to be when his body was laid in the
grave. a Had it been so there would not have been the concern
as to the fate of the body after death wMch we find in many
passages. For a man's body to lie unburied was regarded as a
dire misfortune which concerned Mm, and equally so for Ms
body to be dishonoured after his death. After the battle of
Gilboa the Philistines exposed the bodies of Saul and Ms sons
to dishonour on the walls of Beth-shan until the men of Jabesh-
gilead, mindful of Saul's first exploit on their behalf, 4 took the
bodies down and buried them in Jabesh. 5 Amos condemns the
Moabites because they burned the bones of the king of Edom
into lime. 6 BeMnd such an act and beMnd its condemnation
lies the belief that the act was more than something that con-
cerned the king of Edom's memory; it was sometMng that
injured Mm. He was conceived of as still knowing some sort of
conscious experience.
That this was so is clear from the references to necromancy in
3 Cf. M. Burrows, An Outline of Biblical Theology, 1946, p. 193; N. H. Snaith, The
Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, 1944, p. 89 n.
* Gen. 3.22.
3 H. Wheeler Robinson would seem to imply that it was believed that a man
entirely ceased to be at death. He says (Redemption and Revelation, 1942, p. 141):
*The nephesh is simply an animating principle, which ceases to be anything wnen
it ceases to function.* On this view there was no distinction between man and
animal in Hebrew thought, save in the shape of man's body. This seems to me
to do less than justice to the Old Testament. In Th* Religious Ideas of the OU
Testament, 1913, p. 83, Wheeler Robinson was a little more cautious: 'Man's
nature is the product of the two factors the breath-soul which is his principle of
life, and the complex of physical organs which this ajnimates. Separate them, and
the man ceases to be, in any real sense of personality 9 (italics mine).
4 I Sam. n. i ff. * I Sam. 31.10 ff. Amos 2.1.
i 6 The Faith of Israel
the Old Testament. For necromancy implies a belief that the
dead still exist. It is true that necromancy is condemned in the
teaching of the Old Testament, 1 though it is beyond doubt that
it was quite widely practised. Moreover, its condemnation was
not based on the thought that the dead no longer exist. 2 In the
story of the witch of Endor 3 we find reflected the condemnation
of necromancy, and at the same time a clear belief in its
possibility. The witch called up the form of Samuel and
described it to Saul, so that he was able to recognize it to be
Samuel. It is therefore clear that the dead were believed still to
have a body which was like that which had been theirs before
death. Something different from the Greek belief in the im-
mortality of the soul is therefore to be found here 3 since there is
no idea of a disembodied existence here. 4 We cannot suppose
that it was the lifeless body of Samuel which the witch had
called up from the grave, to be momentarily reinvested with his
vanished spirit. It was to ask him about things subsequent to his
death that he was summoned, so that he was clearly credited
with a consciousness which outlived his body. More probable is
it that he was believed still to have in some other world a body
which was a replica of the body he had had amongst me% though
of thinner substance. Such a belief had a wider significance than
is to be found in necromancy. 6 It explains the concern for the
fate of the body after death. In one of the inter-testamental
books, the Apocalypse of Moses, we find that Adam is buried in
the paradise on earth, after which God says to the archangel
Michael *Go away to Paradise in the third heaven, and strew
linen clothes and cover the body of Adam.' 6 From this it would
appear that there was believed to be a counterpart of the body
1 Cf. Lev. 19.26, Deut. 18.10; I Sam. 15.23, 28.3; II Kings 17.17, 21.6.
8 On the traces of the cult of the dead and the protest against this in the Old
Testament cf. A. Bertholet, Die israelitischen Vorstelkmgm vom %ustand nach dem
Tode, 1914.
3 I Sam. 28.3 ff,
4 It is, however, not dissimilar to the Homeric conception of the dead. Cf. Odyssey,
xi.24 ff*, where Odysseus is represented as visiting the underworld and finding
the shades of the dead each in the form they had at death, and eager to drink the
blood of his sacrifice in order to be restored to life.
B On the wider, non-Israelite, connexions of such a concept cf. J. H. Moulton
Early Zoroastrianism, 1913, pp. 254 ff., and E. Rohde, Psyche, E. Tr. by W. B.
Hillis, 1925, pp. 4 ff., 514 f.
8 Apoc. Mos. 40. i (translation of L.S.A. Wells, in Charles's Apocrypha and Pseudepi-
grapha, ii, 1913, p. 151). The Apocalypse of Moses is the Greek form of The Life of
Adam and Eve.
Death and 157
that is buried on earth in the heavenly While this
stands in a text later than any part of the Old Testament, It
probably reflects an old Israelite belief. Such a
explain the already noted concern for what to
the body after death. If the experience of the replica of that
body was conceived of as being In some way up with
the discarded body, It would be clear how the of
the one might be thought of as an injury to the other.
In all this we are not carried very far, however^ and there Is
no suggestion of any rich or full existence In the beyond* In
the passage that opens the Iliad, Homer says that the fury of
Achilles sent the souls of many valiant warriors to HadeSj while
they themselves were made the prey of dogs and birds. Here
what survives death is thought of as a mere shade. 1 It Is not
merely the bodies of men that are given as prey, but they them-
selves. The body was the real man. Moreover, there is here no
suggestion that the surviving self is In any sense embodied in a
replica of the mortal body. The thought must not be equated
with any side of Old Testament thought, therefore, though It is
not widely different. Oesterley observes that 'the belief In im-
mortality, or at least in life of some kind hereafter, seems to be
Ingrained in human consciousness; It Is doubtful whether any
race of men, even the most backward, are without some Ideas of
an after-life, which is taken for granted.' 2 What really matters,
however, is the nature of the afterlife that is expected, and
many religions have not advanced very far towards a satisfying
faith. In the Old Testament we find variety of view and the
seeds of the most satisfying faith which can be found anywhere.
The dead are represented as being in SheoL In the Author-
ized Version this word is often rendered by 'the grave'. That
this is an inadequate translation is clear from the fact that the
1 Of. M. P. Nilsson, A History of Greek Religion, E. Tr. by F.J, Fielden, 1925, p. 138:
*The souls are shades possessing neither strength nor consciousness, and such
figures there is no need to propitiate and worship. A continued existence of this
kind is of no value to man . . . The life after death becomes so pale and empty
that it is not far from non-existent;* J. A. K. Thomson, in E.R.E., vi, 1913, p.
765 b: *The essential thing about the Homeric ghost is its futility*; and Rohde,
op. cit., p. 24: 'Homer consistently assumes the departure of the soul into an
inaccessible land of the dead, where it exists in an unconscious half-life/
2 Cf. Oesterley and Robinson, Hebrew Religion, and ed. 1937, p. 17. Cf. also H.
Birkeland, Stadia Theologica, iii, 1950-1, p. 63: 'The belief in a continuance of
life after death is not absent from the religion of any people,* and E* Dhorme,
R.H.R., cxxiii, 1941, p. 113: *L*un des phenomenes les plus frappants de la vie
religieuse des sociftls, est certainement Funiversalit^ de la croyance a la survie.*
i 8 The of
dead arc sometimes pictured as being together. 1 In Isa. 14 the
king of Babylon is greeted by the assembled shades with a taunt
song, in which he is scornfully reminded that he who had once
shaken the world was now as powerless as the weakest. 2 Clearly
neither he nor Ms fellow shades are represented as lying in their
several graves. It would be unwise to press this, however, if this
passage stood alone^ since it might be no more than the ex-
pression in vivid imaginative poetry of the fact that death lays
all men low. Since it does not stand alone, it may be more
naturally understood to reflect the belief that the dead were
conscious and were gathered together in some common place.
It is probable, indeed, that behind the conception of Sheol lay
the Babylonian AralM, which Jastrow describes as c the great
cave underneath the earth in which the dead were supposed to
dwell/ 3
There are passages in the Bible which present Sheol in un-
attractive terms. It is the place from which there can be no
return. I shall go to him,* said David, 'but he will not return
to me.* 4 Again Job cries *He who goes down to Sheol shall come
up no more/ 5 It is sometimes presented as a place of ignorance,
where the dead know nothing of what transpires on earth after
their death. *His sons come to honour/ says Job, 'and he
knows it not; they are brought low, but he perceives it not of
them.' 8 Similarly in Ecclesiastes we read 'The dead know noth-
ing, neither have they any more a reward. 5 7 Or again, 'There is
no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, whither
thou goest.' 8 There are other passages, however, where, in dis-
agreement with this, the dead are credited with knowledge
after death, even of the future. Such a passage is the story of
the witch of Endor, where such knowledge is attributed to
Samuel. In the taunt song in Isa. 14 the deeds of the king of
Babylon would appear to be known to his fellow shades, even
though they had followed their own death. In some passages the
existence in Sheol is described in terms of unrelieved misery.
1 On the relation between the grave and Sheol cf. J. Pedersen, Israel /-//, E. Tr.,
pp. 460 ff.
2 Isa. 14.10 ff.
8 Cf. The Religion of Babylon and Assyria, 1895, p. 565. This is not unlike the Homeric
conception of the Underworld; cf. J. E. Harrison, in E.R.E.> xii, 1921, p. 519 a:
'This underworld is no longer a local grave, but a vast remote kingdom of the
dead, separated from the living world by the stream of Okeanos/
4 II Sam. 12.23. 8 Jb 7.9. * Job 14,21, 7 Eccl. 9.5. 8 Eccl. 9.10.
Death and 159
*His flesh upon Mm is in pain/ Job* "And his
mourns within him 3 . 1 Here the thought to be in
the decay of the body in the grave the is in
sufferings and we have probably another trace of the
the body which lies in the grave is associated with a replica in
Sheol, which is involved in its fortunes* In one Job
pictures Sheol as an abode of peace. Tor now should I have
lain down in peace, 5 he says, c . . . There the wicked
from turbulence, 2 and there the weary are at rot. There the
prisoners are at ease together; They hear not the voice of the
taskmaster/ 3 But this is only to indicate by contrast how
miserable his present lot is. For elsewhere he describes Sheol as
'A land of darkness and deep darkness; A land of thick dark-
ness, as dense darkness, Deep darkness and disorder; Where
the very light is as dense darkness*. 4 Such a description would
well fit the Babylonian thought of the Hereafter. "The nether
world, * says Jastrow, 'is joyless . . . The place is synonymous
with inactivity and decay; . . . mortals are doomed to ever-
lasting sojourn, or rather imprisonment, in the realm presided
over by Allatu and her consort Nergal. 6 It should never be for-
gotten that many of the lower levels of Old Testament thought
are shared with neighbouring people, and represent ideas
inherited from the remote past rather than divine revelation to
Israel. e
In many passages Sheol is conceived of as a place of complete
isolation from God. This is reflected in some passages in the
Psalter. c The dead praise not Yahweh, Neither any that go
down into silence.' 7 'What profit is there in my blood, when I
1 Job 14.22.
2 The root meaning of the Hebrew word here is 'agitation*. A. B. Davidson ( Job
(Gamb. B.), 1903 ed,, p. 17) comments: 'Even the wicked there are no more
agitated by the turbulence of their passions.*
8 Job 3.13, 17.
4 Job 10.21 f. In these two verses four different words for darkness are employed.
G. R. Driver, in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East, ed. by M. Noth and
D. Winton Thomas, 1955, pp. 76 f., deletes the words *as dense darkness, Deep
darkness* as a repetitious gloss, and for 'disorder* proposes the meaning 'without
a ray of light*, while for the last line he renders 'gloomy as deep darkness*. For
these new meanings of Hebrew words he adduces Accadian evidence in the one
case and Arabic in the other.
5 Op. cit., p. 565. Cf. M.-J. Lagrange, tudes star Us religions s&nitiques, 1903, pp.
291 ff. For a collection of Babylonian texts relating to death and the Underworld
cf. E. Ebeling, Tod und Lebm nach dm Vorstellwgm der Babylonier, i, 1931.
G. F. Bumey (Israel's Hope of Immortality, 1909, p. 13) stresses that the Sheol con-
ception was 'entirely unconnected with the religion of Yahwe*.
7 Ps. 115.17.
i6o The Faith of Israel
go down to the pit? Will the dust praise thee s will it declare
thy truth? 51 "Wit thou do wonders for the dead? Will the
shades 2 arise and praise thee? Will thy lovingkindness be de-
clared in the grave? Or thy faithfulness in Abaddon? 3 Will thy
wonders be made known in the darkness? And thy righteous-
ness in the land of forgetfulness? 54 It is even suggested that the
dead are forgotten by God ? even though they have been loyal
to him in their lives : c like the slain who lie in the grave. Whom
thou rememberest no more. For they are cut off from thy
hand 9 . 5 There are some passages which present a less negative
view of Sheol, such as the psalmist's cry If I ascend unto
heaven, thou art there : If I make my bed in Sheol, behold thou
art there. 3 We must always be careful not to use a verse for a
purpose for which it was not designed, and to examine it in the
light of its context. In this passage there is really only a note of
warning, and the thought that neither in life nor in death can
a man escape the power of God. The emphasis is not on the
fellowship with God, which we shall find in some other passages,
but only on the universal range of God's power.
That this is not the whole of the thought of the Old Testa-
ment on what Hes beyond death has been already stated. For
within the course of its development we find the beginnings of
the thought of a richer and more worth-while survival in
1 Ps. 30.9 f. (Heb. 10 ). R.S.V. has 'my faithfulness* for 'thy truth', but offers no
authority for the change of pronoun. The noun is the word 'tmeth, commonly
rendered 'truth', but cognate with the word 'emtinah, which is rendered 'faithful-
ness*. See above, pp. 66 f.
2 The Hebrew word used here sometimes denotes an extinct race of giants (e.g.,
Gen. 14.5, 15.20, Deut. 2.11, 20, 3.11); elsewhere, as here, it denotes the shades
of the departed (cf. Isa. 14.9, 26.14, 19; Prov. 2.18, 9.18, 21.16; Job 26.5). Jerome
gave the word the former of these meanings here and rendered by gigantes (cf.
H. de Sainte-Marie, op. cit., p. 126). The LXX and Vulgate rendering rests on a
change of vowels (and perhaps a poor esteem for the medical profession; cf.
Ecclus. 38.15) : 'Will the doctors raise up and will they praise thee?* E. Dhorme
(JR.JFf.jR., cxxiii, 1941, p. 131), associates the two meanings of the word in Hebrew,
and notes the occurrence of the word in Ras Shamra texts. Cf. Gh. Virolleaud,
R.E+S.-B., 1940, pp. 77 ff., and Syria, xxii, 1941, pp. I ff.; R. Dussaud, LcsDtcou-
vertes de Ras Shamra et VAnden Testament, 2nd ed., 1941, pp. 185 fT.; J. Gray,
PJE.Q,.,hacxi, i949 PP- **7 ff-
s This is a poetic synonym for Sheol; cf. Prov. 15.11, Job 26.6, 28.22. In later
thought it was used for the part of Sheol to which the wicked go; cf. R. H.
Charles, in DJ?., i, 1898, p. 3 b. For a developed view of Sheol cf. I Enoch 22.
Of this Charles observes: 'This is the earliest statement of the Pharisaic or Chasid
doctrine of Sheol, but here it is already fullgrown. The departed have conscious
existence, and moral, not social distinctions are observed in Sheol (Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha, ii, 1913, p. 202).
4 Ps. 88.10 ff. (Heb. n ff.). * Ps. 88.5 (Heb. 6). * Ps. 139.8; cf. Amos 9.2.
Death and 1 8 1
another world, and the growth of a in a to
life on earth. Both are sometimes to the of
foreign thought, but it is more probable that was of
foreign origin. For both emerged on distinctively
The idea of resurrection is sometimes traced to the influence of
the Egyptian cult of Osiris 1 or to the influence of
Zoroastrianism, while the other idea is traced to Greek
on the immortality of the soul. I find it hard to accept either of
these theories. That there was Persian influence on Jewish
thought is not to be gainsaid/ and the book of Daniel^ in which
the doctrine of resurrection is most clearly found* almost cer-
tainly reflects that influence, especially in its angelology,* It is
less likely that Persian influence is to be found in the idea of
resurrection, since it is so different in Daniel and in Zoroastrian
sources. 4 In Daniel there is no thought of a universal resurrec-
tion, such as is found in Zoroastrianism/ but only of a selective
resurrection, as will be seen,
Still less likely, in my view, is the suggestion that the idea of
resurrection came into Israel from the Egyptian cult of Osiris. 6
Had it done so, it might have been expected to make its appear-
ance very much earlier than it did. The cult of Osiris was re-
lated to the Babylonian Tammuz cult and to the Canaanite
1 On this cf. H. Gressmann, Tod und Auferstekung des Osiris (A.O., xxiiij No. 3),
1923.
8 On Persian influence cf. above, p. 80, n. 7. W. F. Albright (From the Stone Age to
Christianity, and ed., pp. 275 ) says the value of Iranian religious influences for
our understanding of Judaism and early Christianity has been greatly exag-
gerated, and again (p. 280) observes that Iranian conceptions exerted no effect
on Judaism except where the ground was fully prepared for them.
8 Gf. what I have written in The Relevance of Apocalyptic, and ed., p. 40.
4 Gf. F. Notscher, Altorientalischer und alttestamentlicher Auferstehungsglauben, 1926,
pp. 185 fF., esp. p. 195; 'Uberzeugende positive Beweise fur die Abhangigkeit
des atl. Auferstehungsglaubens vom persischen lassen sich nicht beibrmgen.'
Gf. also A. Bertholet, AJ.TTi., xx, 1916, pp. 25 ff., where it is recognized that
while there was later Persian influence on the development of the Jewish doctrine,
the Jewish belief cannot be traced to a Zoroastrian source. Gf. also Bertholet,
Danul wri fa griecMsdu Gefahr Qbd^ II. B.-, *7)
1907, pp. 53 f. For a statement of the later Jewish views on the subject cf. A.
Marmorstein, A.J.77i., xix, 1915, pp. 577 ff., and J.-B. Frey, Biblica, xiii, 1932,
pp. 129 ff.
B On Zoroastrian ideas cf. J. D. C. J'avry, The Zoroastrian Doctrine of a Future life,
1929; also J. H. Moulton, Early - * " " "" ^ T ^
Die Religionen des Alien Iran, 19
stehungsglauben in der Bibel und i
6 Gf. F. Notscher, op. cit., pp. 1 77 ff., esp. p. 185 : *Eine agyptisch Beeinflussung des
israelitischen Auferstehungsglaubens ist hochst unwahrscheinlich*. Gf. also P.
Heinisch, Theology of the Old Testament, . Tr. by W. Heidt, 1950, p. 267.
The Faith of Israel
fertility cult. 1 Lucian connects Osiris with Adonis/ who is the
Syrian counterpart of Tammuz? It is certain that there was
much influence of Canaanite ritual on Israelite ritual, despite
the vigorous condemnation of so much in the Canaanite religion
in the pages of the Old Testament. There were festivals and
ceremonies which could be integrated into the faith of Israel
and related to the essential message of her religion. But many
of the practices could not be adopted, since, in the view of the
prophets and of Israel's religious leaders, they were at funda-
mental variance with the whole spirit of her religion. The
associations of the resurrection rites of the Adonis-Tammuz-
Osiris cult would almost certainly bring them into the latter
category.
The Osiris cult was originally a royal rite whereby the
Pharaoh was assured of immortality after death, through his
identification with Osiris. While the rites were later demo-
cratized and the ranks of the privileged opened to others, 4 it
was as royal rites that they entered the world of Palestine and
Syria* Much attention has been paid in recent years to the royal
rites in the ancient Near East, and especially to the rites asso-
ciated with the New Year Festival 5 It is disputed how far they
were incorporated in Israelite royal rites, and it would be out
of place to discuss that question here. It is clear from the Old
Testament itself that some Israelite kings followed Canaanite
1 On the relations between the Osiris cult and the cults of Adonis and Tammuz cf.
H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods, 1945, pp. 286 ff. Frankfort emphasizes the
local variations, which are, but to be expected (cf. also S. G. F. Brandon, H.J.,
Im, 1955, pp. 330 ff,). 1fct there were also important links between them. On
the fertility character of the Osiris cult cf. Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 185 ff. For a
translation of the text The Descent of Ishtar, the consort of Tamrnuz, by E. A.
Speiser, c AJTJE.T., 1950, pp. 106 ff. Cf. also T. H. Caster, Thespis, 1950,
pp. 50 f. W. F. Albright (Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, 3rd ed., 1953, p. 167)
says the cult of Tammiiz *can scarcely have become popular in southern Palestine
before the seventh century B.C.*, but adds: 'There were many Canaanite gods of
fertility which were related to Tammuz in character/
1 De Dea Syra, 7 (cf. CL Clemen, Lukians Schnft uber die Syrische Gdttin (A.O., xxxvii,
Nos, 3-4), 1938, pp.8 f.). ' V
3 Cf. W. W. yon Baudissin, Adonis und Esmun, 191 1, pp. 94 ff.
* Cf. J. A. Wilson, The Burden of Egypt, 1951, pp. 1 16 f. Cf. also Frankfort, op. cit.,
p. 197.
* Cf. S. Mowinckel, Psabnenstudien, ii, 1922, and %um israelitischen Neujahr und zur
Dmttmg der Thronbesteigungspsalmen, 1952; H. Schmidt, Die Thronfahrt Jahves am
Fest desjfahreswende im alien Israel, 1927; Myth and Ritual, ed. by S. H. Hooke, 1933,
and The Labyrinth, ed. by S. H. Hooke, 1935; I. Engndl, Studies in Divine Kingship
m the Ancient Mar East, 1943; G. Widengren, Religion och Bibel, ii, 1943, pp. 49 ff..
and SafmUes Kdnigtum im Alten Testament und im Judentum, 1955; A. Bentzen, Dtt
sakrale Kongedemme, 1945; N. H. Snaith, The Jewish Mew Tear Festival, 1947.
Death and
practice too closely, and for this they are This
means that the practices were familiar enough to the
and the fact that we have allusions to them in the rein-
forces this. We find a reference to Adonis gardens in Isa. lyao, 1
and to weeping for Tammuz in the book of Ezekle!, 1 in
Zech. 12.11 the mention of mourning for Hadad-rimmon is a
reference to the same cult. 3 No exception can therefore be
taken to the view that through familiarity with this cult Israel
could have been familiar with the idea of resurrection. 4
That this is not the source of the faith in a resurrection is
clear from the fact that it does not appear in pre-exiHc days, as
it might have been expected to, and from the further fact that
it is essentially different from the alleged source when it does
appear. 6 In the rites the central thing was not to set before men
the idea of human resurrection, but to maintain fertility in
family, field and flock throughout the community. The king
rituaHy died and rose again in ceremonies in which he repre-
sented the god, and the ceremonies were designed to promote
the renewal of Nature. The sacred marriage belonged to the
rites, 7 and the ideas associated with them were reflected in the
sacred prostitution which went on in the shrines, to which there
is frequent adverse reference in the Bible. We are thus in the
area of Canaanite religion which was utterly hateful to the
prophets, and it is most improbable that they drew from this
the thought of resurrection.
In the book of Hosea we read: 'Come and let us return unto
Yahweh: for he has torn, and he will heal us; he has smitten,
and he will bind us up. After two days he will revive us: on the
1 So this passage is understood by most commentators. Cf. G. W, Wade, Isaiah
(West. G.), 1911, p. 119; G, B. Gray, Isaiah (I.C.C.), i, 1912, pp. 302 ; L.
Dennefeld, Les grands Prophetes JPirot-GIamer, La Sainte Bible), 19475 P* 77- ^ n
the other hand E. J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah, i, 1941, p. 200, rejects this view.
* Ezek. 8.13 f.
8 On this cf. J. W.Jack, The Ras Shamra Tablets, 1935, p. 19. On the subject of ritual
weeping cf. F. F. Hvidberg, Graad og Latter i det Garde Testamente t 1938.
4 Gf. H. G. May, A.J.S.L., xlviii, 1931-2, pp. 73 ff., where very many references to
the fertility cult are found in Hosea.
6 Cf. A. T. Nikolainen, op. cit, i, pp. 101 ff., and O. R. Sellers, B.A., vii, 1945,
pp. 6 ff.
8 Cf. H. Birkeland, Stadia Theologica, iii, 1 950-1, p. 67: 'The belief in a resurrection
of Nature and G<xi has very little to do with the resurrection of man*.
T Cf. T. H. Gaster, Thespis, 1950, p. 51 : 'When the King performed the ritual act
of connubium (the so-called "sacred marriage"), a purely "economic" measure
designed to galvanize the vitality of th.e topocosm, this was translated in the
accompanying myth into the nuptials of a god and goddess.*
1 64 The of
third day he will raise us up, and we shall live before hlm. n
Here it is likely, as the commentators point out, that there is an
alusion to the fertility cult. 1 THs is not surprising. A modem
writer may make allusion to ideas and practices in the modem
world which he does not share. Similarly* there are many
references to the fertility cult by writers who borrow expres-
sions from it for their use, 3 while investing those expressions
with a meaning which they bring to them. In this particular
passage the thought is of the revival of the nation, and not of
Hadadj or of Nature, or of human survival after death. 4 The
same thought of the revival of the nation reappears in EzekieFs
vision of the valley of dry bones. 5 When the breath of God came
upon the bones, which first came together and became clothed
with flesh, they were restored to life; but the passage itself is
careful to point out that the vision was a parable of the life of
the nation. It is indeed possible that the form of the vision
helped to give currency to the idea of individual resurrection,
but what the prophet had in mind was not the restoration to
life on earth of dead Israelites, but the recovery of the nation
from the death of the exile and its resurrection to national life
in its own land.
One of the most difficult and obscure passages in the Old
Testament is the word from the book of Job, which reads in the
Revised Version: "But I know that my redeemer liveth, And
that he shall stand up at the last upon the earth: And after my
skin hath been thus destroyed, Yet from my flesh shall I see
3 Hos. 6. i f.
* Cf. E Osty, Amos, Os& (Jerusalem Bible), 1952, p. 94: 'L'expression est peut-
etre emprant&s au culte d'Hadad, dieu qui ressuscitait trois jours apres sa mort*.
Similarly, A. Weiser, Die zwdlfKleincn Pwpheten (A.T.D.), i, 1949, p. 44. Cf. also
T. BL Robinson, in Myth and Ritual (ed. by S. H. Hooke), 1933, p. 187. A.
Bertholet, AJ.7%., xx, 1916, p. 5, notes that the death of Osiris, according to
Plutarch, fell on the seventeenth of Athyr, and his resurrection on the nine-
teenth. Cf. also W. W. von Baudissin, Adonis vnd Esmun, 1911, pp. 403 ff., F.
Notschcr, op. cit., pp. 138 ff., and E. Sellin, Das Zwdlftrophetmbuck (K.A.T.),
and ed,, 1929, pp. 71 ff. S. N. Kramer (B.A.S.Q.R., No. 77, October 1940,
pp. 1 8 ff.) gives an account of Ishtar's descent to the Nether World, where sne
spent three days before her resurrection (for a translation of the text by Kramer,
cf. A.N.E.T., 1950, pp. 52 ff.), but F. Notscher (Biblica, xxxv, 1954, pp. 313 ff.)
denies that there is any connexion between what this text deals with and
Hos. 6.2. Cf. also B. M. Metzger, H.T.R., xlviii, 1955, p. 18 n.
a Cf. H. G. May, A.JJS.L., xlviii, 1931-2, pp. 73 ff., where many references to the
fertility cult are found in Hosea.
4 Gf. H. Birkeland, loc. cit., p. 74: 'The whole context shows that a real resurrection
is out of the question.'
& Ezek. 37.1 ff.
and
God: Whom I see for myself, And
and not another." 1 On this N* H. it
*can be made to refer to life after only by a
latitude in translations a strong attachment to the Latin
version, and reminiscences of Handel's The
text is difficult, but it is unlikely that the vindicator is God, and
Job almost certainly means that he will be vindicated he
is dead.' 2 While I agree that the crucial words are ambiguous*
1 tMnk it possible that the author of Job is here putting the
mouth of his hero the bold suggestion that he will be raised to
witness his vindication after death. I say I think this is possible^
because I recognize that it is not certain. In the interpretation
of so obscure a passage none can fairly claim that the words
must have the meaning he wishes to put on them. Some editors
emend the text to remove any possible reference to resurrec-
tion; 3 others emend clearer references to resurrection into the
text. 4 Neither course is to be commended, and whatever view
is taken of the passage, it should be taken with hesitation and
reserve. Elsewhere in the book the author reflects the ordinary
views of his time, and some of his observations have already
been cited. I think it is probable that here he ventured beyond
those views, but in a daring suggestion rather than in a for-
mulated faith. The ambiguity of his words should be recognized;
but this means they should neither be brushed aside nor over-
pressed. There is no hint here of more than a momentary
consciousness of his vindication by the God in whom he trusted,
in spite of all his complaint against Mm. 5 He seems to me to be
reaching out after something more satisfying than the common
view, but not yet to have grasped it securely. 6
A clearer faith in the resurrection is commonly found in the
l job 19.25 ff.
2 Gf. The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, p. 90 n. For the history of the interpre-
tation of this passage cf. J. Speer, %.A.W. t xxv, 1905, pp. 47 ff.
a So G. J. Ball, The Book of Job, 1922, pp. 276 ff.
4 Gf. P. (E.) Dhorme, Job (E. Bib.), 1926, pp. 256 ff., where an explicit reference to
Job's resurrection is emended into the text. G. Larcher (Job (Jerusalem Bible),
1950, p. 96), comments that this pushes the smoothing of the text too far.
5 Cf. A. S. Peake, Job (Gent.B.), p. 192 : 'The hope of immortality is not expressed
here, but only of a momentary vision of God, assuring him of vindication.*
* Gf. the note on these verses in A. B. Davidson, Job (Gamb. B.), 1903 ed. pp. 291
ff. Davidson finds here the principle, which, 'grasped with convulsive earnestness
in the prospect of death, became the Hebrew doctrine of Immortality* (p. 293).
SutclifFe (op. cit., pp. 131 ff.), on the other hand, finds no hint of an afterlife in
this passage. Cf. J. Lindblom, Studio Theologica, ii, 1940, pp. 65 ff.
1 66 The of
late section of the book of Isaiah, 1 containing chapters 24-273
frequently referred to as the Isaiah Apocalypse/ where we find
the vase; *Thy dead shall live; their 3 corpses shall arise. Awake
and sing, ye who dwell in the dust; for thy dew Is as the dew of
light, 4 and the earth shall cast forth the shades.' 5 Taken by
themselves these words seem clearly to speak of the resurrection
of the righteous dead to life on earth, and many distinguished
scholars so interpret them. On the other hand there are othera
who find nothing that goes beyond the thought of national
resurrection, and who link the message of the passage with that
of Ezekiel's vision of the valley of dry bones. 7 In both the
apparent individuality belongs to the form of the vision rather
than to that which is indicated. Against this view it may be said
that in the previous chapter we read 'He hath swallowed up
death for ever*. 8 Taken out of their context these words
suggest the conditions of the Golden Age, which we shall con-
sider in the next lecture. In their context, however, they may
1 R. H. Pfeiffer (IntrodmUm to the Old Testament, 1941, pp. 441 f.) assigns this section
to the third century B.C., and I have accepted the view that it is not earlier than
the time of Alexander (The Growth of the Old Testament, 1950, p. 93). Some have
placed it later than this, in the second century B.C., but in view of the finding of
the Dead Sea scroll of Isaiah at Qumran (called DSIa or iQI$ a ), it is improbable
that this date will survive. For that MS contains these chapters and is probably
of the second century B.C., and almost certainly not later than the first century
B.C. J. Lindblom (Die Jesaja- Apokalypse, 1935, p. 84) would assign Isa. 24-27 to
area 485 B.C.
s W. Rudolph (Jesaja 24-27, B.W.A.N.T., iv, 10), 1933, p. 59), while recognizing
apocalyptic motrfe in these chapters, observes that they can only be called an
apocalypse with reserve. S. B. Frost (Old Testament Apocalyptic, 1952, pp. 143 flf.)
calls these chapters Pseudo-Isaiah, and maintains that whereas Deutero-Isaiah
is an anonymous section which was added to the book of Isaiah, these chapters
were written by one who deliberately posed as Isaiah, Of this there is no real
evidence.
* The Hebrew reads 'my corpses', but most editors follow the Syriac and the
Targum in reading *their corpses*.
* R.V. has 'the dew of herbs*. The word *6r6th has the meaning 'herbs* in II Kings
4*39 > but it is more naturally taken to mean 'light*, and so most editors under-
stand it. The *dew of light 1 is then the life-giving dew from the realm of light in
which God dwells.
5 Isa. 26.19. G. B. Gray (Isaiah (I.G.G.), i, p. 447) renders the last clause: 'The
earth shall give birth to the shades/
* Cf. G. B. Gray, ibid., p. 446; G. H. Box, The Book of Isaiah, 1916, p. 118; W.
Rudolph, op. cit., p. 4&; J. Lindblom, op. cit., p. 48; L, Dennefeld, Les grands
Prophetes, p. 103; J. Stcinmann, Le Prophete Isa& (Lectio Divina, 5), 1950, p. 356;
E. S. Mulder, Die Teologie van die Jes aja-Apokalipse, 1954, p. 106. 1. G. Matthews
(The Religious Pilgrimage oflsrael> 1947, p. 229) says this verse 'glories in the con-
fidence of the physical resurrection and the individual immortality of Israelites.'
7 Cf. E. F. Sutcliffe, op. cit., pp. 228 ff.; also G. W. Wade, op. cit., pp. 170 f.;
A. van der Flier, Jesaja (T.U.) i, 1923, pp. 137 ; E. J. Kissane, The Book of
Isaiah, i, 1941, p. 298.
8 Isa. 25.8.
and 167
with more probability be understood to be a the
nation will not again find Itself In its low estate. 1
EzeMel could think of the exile as the death of the nation^ and
this author could similarly treat the national misfortunes.
Between these two views of this passage, each held by scholars of
eminence, it is impossible to decide with certainty. My own
view is that there is here no thought of individual resurrection,
though the form of the passage may have played some part in
preparing men for such an idea. It should be noted that even
if there is the thought of individual resurrection, it is not the
thought of the Day of Judgement, but only of the resurrection
of the righteous.
We come then to the only passage in the Old Testament
where we have a clear and undisputed reference to the resur-
rection of the dead. This is found in the book of Daniel in the
words 'Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall
awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and ever-
lasting contempt.' 2 I have already said that I do not trace
this passage to Persian influence. 3 I think the author was
driven by the dynamic of his own faith to this as the corollary
of that faith. 4 He was writing in the period of the Maccabaean
revolt, and he knew of many who had given their lives as the
price of their loyalty to their faith. He had encouraged men
to resistance by the stories in the first part of the book, stories
of men whose loyalty had brought deliverance. The three
youths were delivered from the fire and Daniel from the mouth
of the lions. The author was profoundly convinced that God
could deliver if he would; and yet many of his contemporaries
were not delivered, but suffered death. The author was also
convinced that the day of deliverance for the saints as a
whole was nigh at hand. The kingdom of righteousness
was about to be established, and the dominion exercised
through the saints of the Most High, If the stories of
deliverance with which he had inspired and encouraged men
were not matched in their experience, it must be because God
designed some more wonderful vindication, and they who had
given their lives in their loyalty would not be excluded from
1 E. R Sutciiffe (op. cit, pp. 125 ff.) differently understands this verse, but denies
that its thought is of individual resurrection.
2 Dan. 12.2. 8 Cf. H. Birkeland, loc. cit., pp. 75 f.
4 Cf. The Rediscovery of the Old Testament, pp. 160 f. (American edition, pp. 227 f.)
i68 The Frith of Isr&l
the glories they deserved to share. If God had not delivered
them from death he would restore them from the grave to share
the blessings of the kingdom* 1 On the other hand there were
some of the enemies of the saints who had found in death too
easy a fate, and who would be raised to receive the punishment
they so richly deserved. These were probably the Jewish traitors
who had helped the enemy against the saints. It is to be ob-
served that the resurrection here is only of some of those who
sleep in the dust of the earth. It is only the notably good and
the notably bad who are to be raised to reap the reward of
their deeds. Moreover, the background of the thought is the
normal view of Sheol, where good and bad are congregated
together in a common state. The whole conception is so different
from that of Zoroastrianism that I find it more satisfactory to
find its origin in the writer's faith than in this foreign source.
This means that the verse is not to be interpreted as reflect-
ing any general view held in the author's day. Still less is it to
be understood as though it were identical with the Christian
view of an afterlife in another world. It has been said that in
the New Testament we find variety of thought, and amongst
that variety the thought of eternal bliss beyond this world in
heaven is probably that which has secured deepest hold on
Christian people. It is in heaven and hell that they have
located the rewards and punishments of men. Here, on the
contrary, in this passage from Daniel, what is in mind is physical
life in this world, side by side with those who had not passed
through death, as we have found in certain passages also in the
New Testament. That this Daniel passage played a consider-
able part in the development of thought is not to be gainsaid.
It did not represent the common view of the author's day, but it
influenced later thought. In the apocalyptic books that were
composed between the Maccabaean age and New Testament
times the thought of resurrection was developed in various ways,
and it came to be an article of Pharisaic belief. The Sadducees,
on the other hand, rejected it as a recent fancy, without serious
biblical authority. 2 That it has no secure authority in the Old
Testament, apart from this one passage, is clear from what has
1 Gf. II Mac. 7.9, 14, 23, 36.
2 Cf. Acts 23.8. Cf. also Jo&ephus, Antiquities, XVIII, L 4 (xviii.i6), Wars, II, viii.14
(11.164 ). The statements ofjosephus would seem to imply that the Sadducees
denied any continued existence even in SheoL
Death and 1 69
been said, and there are few Christians who the of
this passage as authoritative. Their view of the is far
more closely akin to the Zoroastrian view than is the
Before we leave the question of resurrection, however, we
must look at some other Old Testament which are
sometimes thought to reflect such a thought* In the Song of
Hannah we find the words: 'The Lord kills, and to life:
He brings down to the grave, and brings up.* 1 Does this mean
that God restores the dead to life ? The Oxford Hebrew Lexicon
finds this meaning/ while A* R. S. Kennedy says it is difficult
to avoid the conclusion that the second line declares the poet's
belief in a resurrection from the dead. 3 Of this I am very
doubtful. The following verse says that God *makes poor, and
makes rich; He brings low, he also raises up/ 4 It is improbable
that this means that he makes a man poor and then makes Mm
rich, but rather that he makes one man poor and another rich,
one man humble and another exalted. It is therefore possible
that in the verse under discussion the meaning is that God
brings one man to death and another to birth, rather than that
he first kills a man and then brings him back to life. The issues
of life and death are in his hand. In the second half of the verse
the meaning would then be that he brings one man down to
Sheol and another up into life. Even if we wish to insist that each
half of the verse refers to a single person, however, there is no
need to find here any idea of resurrection from the dead.
Kennedy, who finds such an idea, then ascribes the song to a
post-exilic date to bring it into the age in which the Isaiah
Apocalypse and the book of Daniel were composed. 5 1 am not
persuaded that it is anything like so late. In the Song of Moses,
which is held by some to be pre-exilic e and by others exilic, 7
1 1 Sam. 2.6. * Cf. B.D.B., p. 311 b.
8 Cf. Samuel (Cent. B.), p. 44. * I Sam. 2.7. 5 Loc. cit*
8 G. A. Smith (Deuteronomy (Camb. B.), 1918, p. 343) holdsittobeapre-exiKcpoem
which received additions in the exilic age. Cf. S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy (I.C.C.),
2nd ed., 1896, p. 347 (circa 630 B.C.), and C. Steuemagel, Das Deuteronomium
(H.K.), 1898, pp. 114 (shortly before the exile). Cf. H. Gunkel, in R.G.G., iv,
1913, cols. 534 f.
7 H. Wheeler Robinson (Deuteronomy and Joshua (Cent. B.), p. 219) ascribes it to
the latter part of the Exile. So also T. Andre", in La Bible du Centewire, i, 1941, p.
281 b, and A. Lods, Histoire de la litterature htbraique etjuive, 1950, p. 481. Gf. also
K. Budde, Das Lied Moses, 1920, G. F. Moore (E.B., i, 1899, col. 1089) thinks it is
from the exilic or post-exilic age. R. H. Pfeiffer (Introduction to the Old Testament,
1 941 , p. 280) ascribes it to the first half of the fifth century B.C., in agreement with
E. Sellin (%.A.W. t xliii (N.F. ii), 1925, p. 171)-
1 70 The Faith of
we read C I kill and I bring to life.* 1 Here we have verbal simi-
larity with the passage in the Song of Hannah, but it is very
improbable that the thought is of resurrection.
In discussing the passage in the Song of Hannah, A, F.
Kirkpatrick says "Death and Sheol are figuratively used for the
depths of adversity and peril; life for deliverance and pros-
perity.* 2 Similarly A. R. Johnson says: 'Just as death in the
strict sense of the term is for the Israelite the weakest form of
life, so any weakness in life is a form of death. 5 This gives the
clue to the understanding of the passage from the Song of
Moses, where the passage reads f l kill, and I bring to life; I
have wounded, and I heal'. What is in mind is probably de-
livery from mortal peril. Similarly, when the psalmist says
*Thou hast rescued my soul from Sheol 5 , 4 he does not mean that
he has been raised from the dead, but saved from death. In
accordance with this, many commentators understand the
passage in the Song of Hannah to mean that it is God who
brings a man into dire straits and who rescues him from his
danger and misfortune. There is therefore little reason to read a
doctrine of resurrection into this verse, or, indeed, to find it
anywhere in the Old Testament, save in the form of Job's
assurance of a momentary resurrection to witness his vindica-
tion, and the verse in the book of Daniel, which has reference
to the contemporary situation of the author.
The other line of development in Old Testament thought is
much richer and profounder. It points to the hope of bliss in
the presence of God in another world. It should be observed at
the outset that it is not primarily a belief in the immortality of
the soul, as in Greek thought. Plato puts into the mouth of
Socrates in the Phaedo the words c After I drink the poison I shall
no longer be with you, but shall go away to the joys of the
blessed you know of.' 5 Here the thought seems to be that the
soul is the enduring element of man's being, and that he can
cast aside the body and mount on the wings of the spirit. In
1 Dent. 32.39. a Cf. / Samuel (Camb. B.), 1903 ed., p. 54.
1 The Vitality of tfw Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel, 1949, p. 94. Gf. also
p. 107 : *In short, the normal Israelite view ... is that to be in sickness of body
or weakness of circumstance is to experience the disintegrating power of death.'
4 Ps. 86.13.
5 E. Tr. by H. N. Fowler, in Plato (Loeb edition), i, 1917, p. 395. On the reliability
of the ascription of such views to Socrates c E. Ehnmark, Eranos, xliv (Eranos
Rudbergianus), 1946, pp. 105 ff.
Death and 171
biblical thought the Idea of Immortal is on the con-
ception of God. It is interesting to note that it is in
in the psalms that we find the beginnings of this thought. Their
interpretation is not agreed, and we must beware of reading
into them ideas which we bring to them.
In Ps. 49 the psalmist says They are appointed as a flock for
Sheol; Death shall be their shepherd ... But God will
ransom my soul from the power of Sheol: For he will receive
me.* 1 We cannot suppose that here Sheol stands for illness or
misfortune. In relation to the wicked it is clear that Sheol
means the abode of the shades beyond the grave; in relation to
the righteous Sheol must therefore have the same meaning, and
the sense be that instead of his going to Sheol, God will receive
him. The general thought of the psalm is of the hoUowness of
the prosperity of the wicked. Nothing that he has wiH be his
beyond the grave, and it is foolish to envy him the fleeting
fortune that is his. If we were to read into the words already
quoted the thought that the righteous will be delivered from his
misfortune in this life, we should make the psalmist offer the
righteous a very empty hope. If the wicked has but to relinquish
his good fortune at death, and the righteous is merely promised
that he will have some good fortune before he dies, he is still
worse off than the wicked. He too must, on this view, relinquish
his good fortune at death, and he is worse off than the wicked,
who is spared ill fortune. What the psalmist is saying is that the
inequalities of this Hfe will be rectified in the next. 2 The wicked
may have good fortune here, but the miseries of Sheol are all
that he can look forward to; whereas the righteous may have
suffering here, but hereafter he will have bliss, for God will take
him to himself. C. F. Burney says The more I examine this
psalm the more does the conviction force itself upon me that
the writer has in view something more than the mere temporary
recompense of the righteous during this earthly life.* 8 With this
view I find myself in the fullest agreement.
1 Ps. 49. 14 f.
* E. F. SutclifTe (op. cit., p. 102) thinks the author of this psalm half discerned the
truth of a richer afterlife.
* Israel's Hope of Immortality, p. 41. Cf. G. A. Briggs, Psalms (I.C.C.), i, p. 4 TI >
where it is said that this verse 'implies the assumption of the righteous dead by
God to Himself', though the verse is held to be a late gloss. Gf. also R. H. Charles,
A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, 2nd ed., 1913, pp. 74 ff. ; E. Pode-
chard, Le Psautier: Traductim . . . et explication . . ., i, 1949, pp. 220 fl
1 72 The Faith of Israel
Again In Ps. 78 we find a familiar passage, which is related
to this in thought, though less clear in expression* 1 The general
thought of the psalm is clear. The psalmist begins by recording
his envy of the lot of the wicked as contrasted with his own. He
is tempted to conclude that virtue is unrewarded, but checks
himself with the realization that he would be a public menace
if he uttered such a word. He then turns to the thought that the
prosperity of the wicked is fleeting, and that judgement will fall
on Mm with swift destruction and all his good fortune become as
insubstantial as a dream, when it is past. Yet this does not
satisfy Mm. He therefore ponders Ms problem further, and asks
Mmself what he has that the wicked has not. He has Ms mis-
fortune. True, but he also has God. Therefore his lot is superior
to that of the wicked, not alone in prospect, but even when he is
in Ms distress and the wicked is in his prosperity. He enjoys
that fellowsMp with God, wMch we have seen to be the basis of
man's truest well-being. 'Nevertheless I am continually with
thee, 9 he cries; Thou dost hold my right hand. Thou dost
guide me with thy counsel, and afterward wilt receive me to
honour. 52 If the translation of the last line were secure it would
be simpler to discuss this passage. In fact, both translation and
interpretation are uncertain. 8 Father Sutcliffe believes that the
psalmist was thinking only of this life. He says The conclusion
... is that the Psalmist is manifesting Ms confidence that God
would, in this life vindicate his justice on the wicked and by
some bestowal of honour on Ms servant show that virtue is what
he desires and accepts.' 4 It seems to me that if tMs is Ms thought
1 H. Hinggren (K.T., iii, 1953, pp. 265 ff.) holds that the style and form of this
psalm derive from the myth of the New Year Festival, though without claiming
that this is a New Year psalm.
2 Ps. 73.23 f.
8 H, Gunkel (Die Psalmen (H.K.), 1926, p. 319) emended the last line vigorously,
to yield the sense: *And in the way thou strengthenest my liver.* H. Graefce,
followed by many scholars, emended (Kritischer Kommentar zu den Psalmen, ii, 1883,
p. 440) to yield : 'And thou takest me by the hand after thee. * G. Beer (%.A. W :> XXL,
1901, pp. 77 f.) emended to secure the meaning: *And thou instructest me in the
way of glory.' H. Herkenne (Das Buck der Psalmen (H.S.A.T.), 1936, p. 250)
excises the words rendered "thou wilt receive me*, and then emends verse 24 to
yield the sense: 'With thy counsel thou leadest me in the way, Thou glory and
strength of my heart.* These emendations are all without authority, and there is
no reason to prefer any of them to the Massoretic text.
4 Op. cit., p. 107. P. Boylan, on the other hand, finds a clear intimation of an
afterlife in the presence of God (cf. The Psalms, ii, 1931, p. 8). Cf. also G. Lattey,
The Psalter in the Westminster Version, 1945, p. 137, where it is said that there is here
a distinct, if rather vague, reference to the next life.
Death and Beyond 1 73
he has an odd way of expressing It. He speaks of God receiving
Mm, rather than of Ms bestowing some material boon upon
Mm. He first declares that he enjoys God's fellowsMp here and
now, and if God is to receive Mm, it must be to future fellow-
ship. If that is still in this life, notMng is added to the thought;
but if it is beyond the grave then the words contribute some-
tMng to the thought. It therefore seems to me likely that the
meaning is that both before death and after death he has a
secure treasure in the fellowsMp of God. The God who delights
to enrich Mm with the experience of Mmself now will grant
Mm fuller fellowsMp hereafter. 1
It is perhaps not without significance that in both of these
psalms God is said to 'receive' the righteous. Many writers 2 have
noted that the same word is used of Enoch, of whom we read
that he walked with God and was not, Tor God took Mm*. 8
The word is a common one in Hebrew, and could not by itself
require the thought of the afterlife. It is used in Ps. 18.16
(Heb. 17) where there is certainly no such thought. Neverthe-
less, there is so close a link of thought between these two
passages in the psalms and the story of Enoch that the choice
of word may be significant. Enoch was one who knew the
fellowsMp with God in this life to such a degree that he was
spared the experience of death, but was lifted into enduring
fellowship. The story of Enoch is commonly assigned to a late
strand of the Pentateuch; but it was certainly not invented by
1 N. H. Snaith (The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, p. 89) says 'the argument
is valid only in the English version. The Hebrew reads "the heavens'*. He is
speaking geographically. Further, Kabod (glory) means honour and prosperity
in the things of this life; it means heavenly bliss only with the English Evan-
gelicals of a former generation. The "after" means after these temporary dis-
tresses.' In contrast to this Oesterley and Robinson (Hebrew Religion, and ed.,
I 937> P- 364) say: 'As to the belief concerning the future life, the passage wit-
nesses to the conviction that it is a glorious life, for in the Hereafter God is man's
portion for ever'. It is interesting, too, to note that the Jesuit, Father C. Lattey,
adopted the rendering and the interpretation which Snaith would confine to the
English Evangelicals of a former generation (cf. preceding note). C. A. Briggs
(op. cit., ii, 1909, p. 147) comments that 'the psalmist finds the solution of the
inconsistencies of this life in the final reward of the righteous after death'.
8 Cf. F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, E. Tr. by D. Eaton, ii, 1888,
pp. 137, 368; T. K. Cheyne, The" Origin of the Psalter, 1891, p. 149; R. Kittel,
Die Psalmen (K.A.T.), 1929, pp. 182, 348; G. R. Berry, The Book of Psalms, 1934,
p. 144 b; F. Zorell, Psalterium ex hebraeo latinwn, 2nd ed., 1939, p. 121 ; E. Pode-
chard, op. cit., i, 19491 P 22I > Pannier-Renard, Les Psaumes (Pirot-Clamer, La
Sainte Bible), 1950, p. 291 a; O. Schilling, Der Jenseitsgedanke im Alten Testament,
i95* PP- a 6
8 Gen. 5.24.
1 74 The Faith of Israel
the late writer. It Is an ancient story 5 testifying to the thought
of continuing fellowship with God after death, and without any
suggestion of resurrection to life on earth. In Ps.y3 we have the
same thought of satisfying fellowship with God in this life,
followed by God's receiving the psalmist. In Ps. 49 the receiving
saves the psalmist from going to Sheol, as the receiving of
Enoch saved the patriarch. Sheol was not the last word of the
Old Testament on what followed death. For God is the Lord
of all things, and even Sheol is under his hand. From its in-
satiable maw he is able to save for himself those whom he will.
In the light of these two passages we may look at a third
from the Psalter. In Ps. 16 the writer says "Thou wilt not
abandon my soul to Sheol; Neither wilt thou let thy devotee
see the Pit.' 1 Here the general thought of this psalm is not very
different from that of the two at which we have looked. A
modern Jewish commentator believes that it is dependent on
Ps. 73. 2 The psalmist declares that he has no good beyond God,
and that God is his portion and his strength. So far he is clearly
thinking of this life, as is the author of Ps. 73 when he says
'Nevertheless I am continually with thee. 5 There is no sugges-
tion here, however, that he is in any danger or distress. Hence
when he says 'Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Sheol 5 , 8 there
is no reason to suppose that he is thinking of deliverance from
misfortunes, or recovery from sickness* He is cherishing the
hope that in this life and beyond he may find in God his portion
still, and so may be delivered from Sheol, He continues 'Thou
wilt show me the path of life; In thy presence there is fullness of
joy; In thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.' 4
1 Ps. 16.10. The final word is rendered 'corruption* in R.V., and this is defended
by E. F. Sutcliffe (op. cit., pp. 76 ff.), and J. Gales (Le Livre des Psaumes, i, 1936,
p. 199. B.D.B. allows only the meaning *the pit' for it (p. 1001 b). It may be
agreed with Sutcliffe that the word could be derived from the lootskafiath, which
is used of corrupt, or immoral, behaviour, and more widely of spoiling or destroy-
ing things. It is not used of the corruption of the body in decomposition, and
though it is once used in poetry parallel to the worm of corruption (Job 17.14),
the meaning *the pit* would yield a good parallel there. It is very improbable that
the meaning *Thou wilt not allow me to experience decomposition* would be
expressed by saying 'Thou wilt not allow me to witness destruction*. Hence the
meaning *the pit* is to be preferred with most editors.
* Cf. M. Buttenwieser, The Psalms, 1938, p. 511.
a Briggs (op. cit., i, pp. 121 f.) holds that the meaning is that God will not abandon
him in Sheol, but will go with him and remain with him there, and will save him
from seeing the dungeon of Sheol, where only the wicked go.
4 Ps. i6.ii. F. Schwally (Das Leben nach dem Tode, 1892, p. 123) holds that the
speaker in these verses is not an individual, but the personified community.
Death and Beyond 175
In all these three passages from the Psalter, therefore 5 I find
an incipient faith that God, who is the source of man's well-
being here, will continue to be the source of the well-being of
Ms own in the hereafter. Writing of the first two of these
psalms, 49 and 73, W. E. Barnes, says "It should be observed
further that in both Psalms it is an individual hope; the two
Psalmists confess the hope as a personal testimony to a prospect
which doubtless they wish "the Righteous" to share with them.
But for them the Future Life is a hope, not a doctrine, a hope
struggling to express itself in a milieu in which almost all men
felt that Death was the end of all for the individual life.' 1
This may seem a meagre gleaning from the Old Testament;
yet it is not without value. There is no uniform or sure faith in
an afterlife that is meaningful, but there are these Teachings out
after such a faith. 2 What is of most importance, in these glimpses
we do not have the thought that man is too great to die, or that
life is too rich to come to a final end in the grave. We have the
thought of life with God, and deriving from his fellowship.
There is here something more satisfying than philosophy can
offer, and something more deeply religious in inspiration and
character. It is God who offers life that is worthy to be called
life, both here and in the beyond, and he offers life because he
offers himself. It is because the abiding God is the source of that
life that the life itself is abiding. Such a thought is closely akin
to what we find in some passages in the New Testament. Jesus
1 The Psalms (West. G.), ii, 1931, p. 348; cf. T. K. Cheyne, The Origin of the
Psalter, pp. 380 ff., esp. p. 409, where, after studying these passages, lie says: 'I
have endeavoured to show critically that among the religious ideas of the Psalter
are those of immortality and resurrection.' Cf. also R. Kittel, Die Psalmen
(K.A.T.), 1929, pp. 182, 248.
8 A. F. Kirkpatrick (Psalms (Gamb. B.), 1906 ed., in locis) finds no thought of an
afterlife in any of the three passages from the Psalms examined above, and O. J.
Baab similarly understands them (The Theology of the Old Testament, p. 218). So
also H. Gunkel (What Remains of the Old Testament, E. Tr., p. 105) says 'the idea
of life after death appears nowhere in the Psalter*. Cf. also Gh. Barth, Die
Enettmg vom Tode, 1947, pp. 158 E, B. D. Eerdmans, The Hebrew Book of Psalms
(O.T.S., iv), 1947, pp. 266, 350, and S. H. Blank, in To Do and to Teach
(Pyatt Memorial Volume), 1953, pp. i ff., where a similar view is taken of Ps. 49
and 73, or of the latter alone. G. R. Berry (op. cit., in locis) understands the
passages in Ps. 49 and 73 of the afterlife, but not that in Ps. 16, while S. R.
Driver (The Expositor, 7th series, x, 1910, pp. 35 f.) finds the thought of the
afterlife in all of these passages; so also A. T. Nikolainen (op. cit., i, pp. 122 f.,
1 24, 1 25) . That scholars are so divided in their understanding sufficiently indicates
that no clear doctrine is here enunciated, and it is unwise to press the interpretation
on either side. That is why I speak of a glimpse, rather than of a firm faith. Cf.
G. Quell, Die Auffassimg des Todes in Israel, 1925, p. 40.
1 76 The Faith of Israel
said *I have come that they may have Efe^ and may have It
abundantly'; 1 and again he claimed that he himself is the life. 2
It is therefore by giving himself that he gives life, and the life
endures because its source endures. ^Whoever drinks of the
water that I shall give him will never thirst; but the water that
I give him shall become in Mm a well of water springing up into
eternal life. 9 In giving Mmself he gives God, since C I and my
Father are one'. 4 'He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood
abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I
live because of the Father; so he who eats me will live because
of me. 55 The life that is mediated through Christ is the life of
God, and in both Testaments God is the only source of man's
true life, whether here or hereafter. While there are only a few
passages in the Old Testament which carry that thought to the
hereafter, it is important to observe that they are in harmony
with the fundamental principles set forth in the Bible in rela-
tion to this life, and are but an extension of those principles.
1 John 10.10. * John 14.6. * John 4.14. 4 John 10.29. * John 6.54.
VII
DAY OF LORD
THROUGHOUT the Old Testament there is a forward look. By
this more is meant than the prophetic announcement of the
issue of men's deeds and of the policies of the state in the iUs
that were so commonly foretold. Israel believed that while
there was a brief period of innocence and bliss at the opening of
history, the real climax and crown of history lay in the future.
She had a firm assurance that 'the best is yet to be% though that
assurance, like every aspect of her faith, was rooted and
grounded in God and not the mere expression of human
optimism. It is increasingly recognized that this element was
found in her thought from an early age, 1 and there is less dis-
position today than there once was to assign every passage
which expresses this hope to a late period. Various terms are
associated with this hope, and at some only of these, and the
passages in which they are found, can we look here.
It is clear that in the popular hopes of the time of Amos the
'Day of Yahweh 5 was such a term. Men believed that this was
the day on which God would arise to scatter all his foes and save
Israel in a signal way. 2 But Amos turned the phrase into the
1 Cf. J. M. P. Smith, A.J.Th., v, 1901, p. 533: 'The development of the idea of the
Day of Yahweh in Israelitish history was marked, not so much by the addition
from time to time of new features as by the expansion and deepening of elements
already present, at least in germ, at the time of the origin of the prophetic
conception*.
* This represents the common view of the interpretation of the passage in Amos.
Gf. A. B. Davidson, in D.B., i, 1898, pp. 735 fF., H. Gressmann, Der Urspnmg
der israelitisch-judischen Eschatologie, 1905, pp. 141 fF., and Der Messias, 1929, pp.
74 fF., R. H. Charles, Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, 2nd ed., 1913,
pp. 86 fF., Driver and Lanchester, Joel and Amos (Gamb. B.), 1915, pp. 188 f.,
Oesterley and Robinson, Hebrew Religion, 2nd ed., pp. 227 f. Davidson and
Gressmann argued that the term had an eschatological content, but this is denied
by R. S. Cripps, The Book of Amos, 1929, pp. 59 fF. S. Mowinckei (Psalmenstudien,
ii, 1922, pp. 45 fF.) linked the term *Day of Yahweh' with the annual New Year
Festival. His view was contested by K. Cramer, Amos (B.W.A.N.T., iii, 15),
1930, pp. 136 fF., where it is maintained that the term was not of popular crea-
tion, but was fundamentally a prophetic term. A. Neher (Amos: Contribution d
r etude du prophe'tisme, 1950, pp. 1 14 fF.) follows Cramer, though he allows that
177
178 The of Israel
symbol of the coming judgement on Israel. 5 Woe to you who
desire the day of Yahweh! What is the day of Yahweh to you?
It is darkness and not light. As if a man should flee from a Hon,
and a bear should meet Mm; or should enter the house and lean
Ms hand on the wall, and a serpent should bite him/ 1
Zephaniah thought of it as a day of more general judgement.
"The great day of Yahweh is near, it is near and coming
swiftly . . . That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and
distress, a day of ruin and desolation, a day of darkness and
gloom, a day of cloud and thundercloud, a day of trumpet and
alarm, against the fortified cities, and against the high battle-
ments/ 2 and the sequel makes it clear that the desolation was to
be widespread amongst all the nations of the world.
This element of judgement belongs essentially to the thought
of the Day of the Lord. What Amos brought to the term was
not the idea of judgement, but the idea of a moral judgement.
It was not to be simply a judgement on Israel's foes, but a
judgement on men whose lives were offensive to God, whether
within Israel or without. The book of Joel presents this aspect
of the Day of the Lord, which it too describes as e a day of dark-
ness and gloom, a day of cloud and thundercloud,' 3 But it makes
it clear that beyond the judgement in which all that was alien
to God's will should be consumed there would be a new glory
and light. *It shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out
my spirit upon all flesh . . . And it shall come to pass that
everyone who calls on the name of Yahweh shall be delivered:
for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who
escape, as Yahweh hath said, and among the survivors those
whom Yahweh calls.' 4 In the section of the book of Isaiah
which is most closely akin to apocalyptic writing we find a
similar idea of judgement followed by a Golden Age. "The earth
Mowinckel may be right in thinking that behind it lay some ritual or liturgical
usage. J. HaleVy (Revue Semitique, xi, 1903, pp. 104 f.) holds that the term was
always one of judgement, and that those to whom Amos referred, who professed
to desire to see the Day of Yahweh, did so mockingly. On the concept of the
'Day of Yahweh 1 cf. further J. M. P. Smith, A.J.Th., v, 1901, pp. 505 ff., A.
Weiser, Die Prophetfe des Amos (B.Z.A.W., No. 53), 1929, pp. 213 ff., A. S.
Kapelrud, Joel Studies* 1948, pp. 54 ff., V. Maag, Text, Wortschatz und Begrifswelt
des Buckes Amos, 1951, pp. 246 ff., and A. Gelin, Lumiere et Vie, September 1953,
pp. 39 ff. ; also the monograph by L. Cernf , The Day of Tahweh and Some Relevant
Problems , 1948, where a critical survey of the modern history of the interpretation
of the Day of Yahweh may be found.
1 Amos 5.18 f. a Zeph. 1.14 ff. Joel 2.2. 4 Joel 2.28, 32 (Heb. 3.1, 5).
The Day of the Lord 1 79
shall stagger like a drunken man, and shaU sway to and fro like
a hut 1 . . . And it shall come to pass in that day, that Yahwefa
will punish the host of the height on high, and the kings of the
earth on the earth.' 2 Yet following the judgement we find 'and
it shall be said in that day, Lo 3 this is our God; we have waited
for him, and he will save us : this is Yahweh; we have waited for
him, let usbeglad andrejoice in his salvation 3 .* The same pattern
is found in the book of Daniel, where the thought of a general
judgement on the nations introduces the promise of the inaugur-
ation of the enduring kingdom of the saints of the Most High. 4
While in some passages the Day of the Lord was conceived of
as nigh at hand, 5 all think of it as the time of the divine breaking
into history in spectacular fashion. While God was believed to
be always active on the plane of history, using Nature and men
to fulfil his ends, the Day of the Lord was thought of as a day
of more direct and clearly manifest action. Most of the pre-
dictions of the prophets were of the issue of the conditions of
their day. These passages, on the contrary, were of a future not
causally linked with the present, but of the time when it should
be God's pleasure to consume all that is evil and to bring in the
age of bliss. In such passages we often find the expressions 'in
the latter end of the days', or c in that day', where the meaning
seems to be c on the horizons of time'. 6 For most of the prophets,
1 This is the same word as is used in Isa. 1.8 for the temporary shelter erected in a
cucumber field for the watchman at the time when the cucumbers were ripening.
* Isa. 24.20 f. 8 Isa. 25.9. 4 Dan. 7.10 ff.
5 Isa. 13.6, Ezek. 30.3, Joel 1.15, 2.1, 3.14 (Heb. 4.4), Obad. 15, Zeph. 1.14
N. K. Gottwald (Studies in the Book of Lamentations,, 1954, pp. 83 f.) notes that in
Lam. 1. 12, 2.1, 2.21 f., we have a unique conception of the Day of Yahweh as
already past. Cf. also L. Cerny*, op. cit., p. 20.
1 Cf. H. Gressmann, Der Messias, 1929, pp. 82 ff., where it is argued that such
expressions as 'in those days', *in that day', 'behold, the days are coming*, and
*in the latter end of the days* are termini technics introducing eschatological
passages. This is contested, so far as the second of these expressions is concerned,
by P. A. Munch, The Expression Bajjfim Hdhff: Is it an Eschatological Terminus
Technicus? 1936, and it is argued that it is always a temporal adverb. Gf. A. S.
Kapelrud, Joel Studies, 1948, pp. 165 ff., where it is held that both Gressmann
and Munch are partly right, and that we cannot impose a single meaning on all
the occurrences of the term. Gf. also W. Staerk, g.A.W., xi, 1891, pp. 247 ff.,
where it is similarly argued that for the last of the above mentioned expressions
the usage is not always the same. Staerk holds that it was in the period of the
Exile that this expression first took on an eschatological meaning, and he there-
fore relegates to a post-exilic date Isa. 2.2, Micah 4,1, Hos. 3.5, and Deut. 4.30.
Against this many scholars of varying schools fina Isa. 2, 2= Micah 4.1 to be
either from Isaiah or Micah or from an earlier prophet, and therefore to be at
least as early as the eighth century B.C. (cf. above, p. 1 3 7, n.6). This would not
invalidate Staerk's argument, but would push back to a much earlier date the
time when this expression took on an eschatological nuance.
1 80 The Faith of Israel
however much the judgement might be thought to stretch down
to the near future, the glory lay afar off, whereas for the apo-
calyptists that too lay in the near future. Nevertheless, lines
should not be drawn too sharply between prophecy and
apocalyptic. There are sections which approximate to apo-
calyptic in prophetic books, and apocalyptic is a development
from prophecy. 1 Nowhere is the glory thought to be something
that should be brought about by human activities* or be the
fruit of human policies. It would be the gift of God. Tor f
behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former
things shall not be remembered, or come into mind.' 2 In that
new world life should be incomparably good for men. 'And
they shall build houses and inhabit them; and they shall plant
vineyards, and eat their fruit.' 8 'They shall sit every man under
his vine and under his fig tree, with none to make them
afraid.' 4 Even the nature of brute beasts would be changed to
match the glories of that age. The wolf shall live with the
lamb, and the leopard lie down with the kid; and the calf and
the young lion shall graze 5 together; and a little child shall
lead them.' 8
It is to be observed that the pictures of the Golden Age are
always of a universal character. It was tacitly recognized that
there could be no Golden Age for Israel until all men shared it.
This, as has been said in an earlier lecture, springs out of the
Old Testament conception of the nature of man. It was also
bom of Israel's experience as a small nation set amidst great
empires. Sometimes other nations are represented as serving
Israel, 7 or Israel's king is pictured as holding universal sway, 8
but there is always the recognition that unless the blessings of
the coming age are shared by all men, none can have them with
security. Something more than national pride lies behind this
conception, which is profound and penetrating*
1 Gf. The Relevance of Apocalyptic, and ed., pp. 22 ff.
* Isa. 65.17. 8 Isa. 65.21. * Micah 4.4.
& The Massoretic text has *and the fatling', but most editors have long believed
that a verbal form stood in the original text, basing themselves on the LXX and
Vulgate texts. The Dead Sea scroll text of Isaiah (DSIa or iQIs a ) has a verbal
form, which is probably a defectively written form from a root not elsewhere
found in Hebrew, but cognate with the word for 'fatling 1 , giving the meaning
'shall grow fat*, or the like.
* Isa. 1 1.6. T Cf. Isa. 60.10 ff., 61.5, Dan. 2.44., 7.27.
* Cf. Zech. 9.9 f., with which cf. Ps. 72.8, 10 f.j also Ps. 2.8 f., Micah 5.2, 4 (Heb.
The Day of the Lord 181
In an earlier lecture It has been said that the faith that
obedience to the will of God is the way of man's well-being^
whether on the individual or the national scale, was one side of
the truth. There is also the other side, that human sin, whether
Individual or collective 3 brings injustice and undeserved suffer-
ing, and introduces forces which counteract the simple working
out of the principle that merit and lot belong together. But
when all that is alien to the will of God is swept away the
situation will be changed, and the natural fruit of obedience in
perfect well-being will be gathered by all. That is why the
Golden Age had to be universal. It was the corollary of the
faith of Israel, which perceived that every man is involved in
the sins of others as well as in his own, and that until sin Is no
more he cannot know perfect well-being. He may know the
fellowship of God under present conditions, and therefore know
the deepest well-being. But many sides of his life may lack the
fullness which it should have. For though it has been Insisted
earlier that it Is a distortion of the teaching of the Old Testa-
ment to say that prosperity is its conception of blessing, it did
not despise prosperity, which entered as an element into the
totality of its thought of blessing.
From this it follows that in biblical thought the Golden Age
has a fundamentally religious basis. It is essentially the Day of
the Lord, and what is of importance is that there shall not only
be unity of rule, but that all shall be permeated by the spirit of
God, so that all life shall reflect his will. It was never con-
ceived in merely economic or political terms, but always in
moral and spiritual terms, so that it is appropriately thought of
as the Kingdom of God, whether the term is found or not. 1 It
was the age when peace and justice should be universal amongst
men. They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their
spears into pruninghooks; nation shall not lift up sword against
nation, and they shall learn war no more/ 2 'With justice shall
he judge the needy, and give decision with equity for the meek
of the earth.' 3
Two things the modern world seeks with pathetic eagerness,
yet always with the fear in its heart that they may be eluding it
in the moment when it feels they are within its grasp. These are
1 Cf. H. Junker, Triem Theologische Zeitschrift, bcii, 1953, pp. 65 ff.
* Isa. 2.4; Micah 4.3. * Tsa. 11.4.
1 82 The Faith of Israel
economic security and enduring peace. In the oracle ascribed
to Isaiah and to Micah, both prophets of the eighth century,
we see that the same yearnings filed men's hearts in the
ancient world. In the form which the oracle has in Micah we
find the already quoted dream of economic bliss when every
man would sit securely under his own fruit trees. 1 In both
forms we have the dream of enduring peace. 2 But the prophets
of Israel did not share the modern delusion of some who fancy
that it is enough to demand that swords shaE be beaten into
ploughshares and spears into pruninghooks. They realized that
man's life arises from his spirit, and that God alone can cleanse
his spirit. Hence they declared the Golden Age to be the time
when all men should go up to the house of the God of Israel,
and when men everywhere should seek to know and to do his
will. 'And many peoples shall go and say, Come, let us go up to
the mountain of Yahweh, and to the house of the God of
Jacob ; that he may teach us of his ways, and that we may walk
in his paths . . , And they shall beat their swords into plough-
shares, and their spears into pruninghooks.' s The beating of
swords into ploughshares was not thought of as a cause, but a
consequence. For the Old Testament takes seriously its own
recognition that man was created to do the will of God, and
that the full stature of his manhood can be attained only when
he does it. It also recognizes that he does not stumble into the
way of that will, but must be guided into it by submitting him-
self unto God. Therefore it is that the Golden Age is always the
Kingdom of God. In a passage in the book of Jeremiah, which
is commonly held to be misplaced or denied to that prophet, 4
we read e At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of
Yahweh, and all nations shall be gathered there, in the name
of Yahweh, at Jerusalem; and they shall no more walk after
the stubbornness of their evil heart.* 5 Here we find the same
essential thought that only the universal submission to God
can eliminate that which militates against well-being.
Implicit in the faith of Israel is universalism, which almost
certainly finds expression long before the time of Deutero-
Isaiah. In the earliest of the documents of the Pentateuch we
find passages which say in relation to Abraham 'in thee shall
1 Micah 4.4. 2 Isa. 2.4; Micah 4.3. * Isa 2.3 f.; Micah 4.2 f.
4 Sec above, p. 137, n. 7. 6 Jer. 3.17.
The Day of the Lord 1 83
all the families of the earth be blessed.* 1 Professor d R. North
has observed that 'Something like the note of universalism is
already struck in these words/ 2 While we should not exaggerate
the element of universalism here, this judgement is probably
right. In two of the five passages 3 where this thought is found,,
the Hebrew uses a reflexive verbal form, which is most naturally
rendered 'all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves*, or
'shall involve blessing upon themselves 5 . In the other three
passages 4 the verbal form is normally passive, though it was
originally reflexive and often has reflexive significance. It is
therefore natural that most scholars should render all the
passages by the reflexive, and should find expressed here no
more than the thought that Abraham will be so richly blessed
by God that other nations shall conceive of no higher blessing
for themselves than that they might know a like blessing. 5
Before we conclude that it is no more than the expression of
national pride, however, we should reflect that Abraham's
greatness is wholly associated with his religion. It was in
response to the call of God, and therefore to a religious impulse,
that Abraham went forth from Harran. 6 It was because he
obeyed the voice of God and yielded to the divine guidance that
he became great and that he was promised that his descendants,
who were conceived of as heirs of his faith no less than of his
well-being, would become the standard of blessing amongst
men. While there is not the thought of the universal sharing of
Abraham's faith, there is implied the thought that Abraham's
faith and that of his descendants will give to Israel a universal
significance.
It is but a short step from this to the thought of Gentiles
sharing the faith of Israel, which is the foundation of her bless-
ing, in order that they might share the blessing. That thought
we find not alone in the already quoted passages in the prophets,
1 Gen. 12.3; cf. 18.18, 22.18, 26.4, 28.14.
8 The Old Testament Interpretation of History, 1946, p. 26.
8 Gen. 22.18, 26.4. These verses are ascribed to the E document by O. Eissfeldt,
Hexateuch Synopse, pp. 36*, 46*, while Oesterley and Robinson (Introduction to the
Books of ike Old Testament, p. 35) ascribe the former to E and and the latter to J,
and others ascribe both to a Redactor (so S. R. Driver, Genesis (West. G.), 1904,
pp. 220, 250; W. H. Bennett, Genesis (Cent. B.), pp. 241, 267; J. Skinner, Genesis
(I.C.C.), 1910, pp. 331, 364), H. E, Ryle, Genesis (Gamb. B.), 1921, pp. 239,
274).
4 Gen. 12.3, 1 8.18, 28.14. These are all ascribed to the J document.
* Cf. C. G. Montefiore, The Old Testament and After, 1923, p. 85. 6 Gen. 12.1.
184 The Faith of Israel
but in a number of other passages also. Already in the pre-
exilic age we find Zephamah saying Tor then will 1 give to the
peoples pure lips/ that they may all call upon the name of
Yahweh, to serve him with one consent. From beyond the
rivers of Ethiopia my suppliants, widely scattered, 2 shall bring
me an offering.* 8 His contemporary Jeremiah similarly pro-
phesies of the day when the Gentiles shall flock to the God of
Israel and acknowledge him. *O Yahweh, my strength and my
fortresSs and my refuge in the day of affliction, unto thee shall
the nations come from the ends of the earth, and shall say,
Only lies have our fathers inherited, even vanity and worthless
things . . . And they shall know that my name is Yahweh,' 4
In the immediately post-exilic age we find Zechariah saying
'Many peoples and mighty 5 nations shall come to seek Yahweh
of hosts in Jerusalem, and to entreat the favour of Yahweh . . .
In those days it shall come to pass that ten men of all the
tongues of the Gentiles 6 shall lay hold of the cloak of a Jew,
1 The Hebrew may be rendered literally 'I will overturn to the peoples a pure lip*,
which could mean *a pure language*, as R.V. has it, since in Hebrew 'lip* may
mean 'language*, just as in English we use 'tongue 1 . But since it is the person
rather than the language that needs to be pure before one can approach God,
it is more probable that 'lip' here stands for the personality, precisely as in Isa. 6.7.
s Die .Hebrew means, literally, 'the daughter of my scattered ones', where 'the
daughter of* is simply a personification, as 'daughter of Zion' stands for 'people
of Zion 1 . Some scholars think this line is corrupt, however, and prefer the con-
jectural emendation, which yields the sense 'From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia
to the farthest reaches of the north' ; so K.. Elliger, Das Buck der zwolf Kleinm
Prophetm (A.T.D.), ii, 2nd ed., 1951, p. 74. Others think the words 'my sup-
pliants, the daughter of my scattered ones* are a gloss; so F. Schwally, %J}..W.
x, 1890, p. 203, and A. van Hoonacker, Les douze Petits Prophetes (E. Bib.), 1908,
P* 532.
3 Zeph. 3.10.
4 Jer. 16.19, 21. B. Duhm (Jeremia (K.H.G.), p. 141) separates verse 21 from
verses 19 f. on the ground that the former is in the style of Ezekiel and H, while
F. Giesebrecht (Jeremia (H.K.), p. 96) regards both verse 20 and verse 21 as
glosses, and observes that the latter has analogies with Deutero-Isaiah and
E2ekiel. L. E. Binns (Jeremiah (West. C.), p. 137) finds the connexion of verse 21
with what precedes awkward, and notes its similarity to the style of Deutero-
Isaiah. G. A. Smith (Jeremiah, 3rd ed., p. 220) thinks verse 21 would be more in
place after verse 18, and with this F. Notscher (Jeremias (H.S.A.T.), p. 140)
agrees. On the other hand, P. Volz (Jeremia (K.A.T.) 2nd ed., p. 183) treats
verses 19-21 as a unit, but as un-Jeremianic, and E. A. Leslie (Jeremiah, 1954,
p. 325) does the same, and attributes them to a Deuteronomic editor. G. A. Smith
(op. cit., p. 356) and J. Skinner (Prophecy and Religion, p. 308) treat verses 19 f.
as Jeremianic, but Skinner makes no reference to verse ai. For our present
purpose it does not matter whether verse 2 1 is left out of account, since the thought
of verse 19 alone suffices.
6 Or 'numerous*.
* E. Sellin (Das %wolfprophetenbuch (K.A.T.), 2nd ed., p, 534) changes one letter
of the text, to read *of all tongues and nations'.
The Day of the Lord 185
saying. We will go with you, for we have heard that God is
with you.' 1 In the psalms we find this thought reflected. *A11
the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to Yahweh: And
all the families of the nations shall worship before Mm. 52 Some-
times we find the summons to the nations to recognize God's
goodness to his people Israel, to praise him for it, and to be
moved by it to bring him their worship. 'Praise Yahweh, all ye
nations; Laud him, all ye peoples. For great is his mercy toward
us.* 3 'Sing to Yahweh a new song; Sing to Yahweh, all the
earth . . . Proclaim his salvation from day to day. Declare his
glory among the nations. His marvellous acts among all the
peoples . . . Give to Yahweh, ye families of the peoples. Give
to Yahweh glory and strength. Give to Yahweh the glory due
to his name: Bring an offering, and come into his courts.' 4
Most clearly are these elements combined in another psalm:
'The nations shall fear the name of Yahweh, And all the kings
of the earth thy glory: For Yahweh hath built up Zion, And
hath appeared in his glory . . . That men may declare the
name of Yahweh in Zion, And his praise in Jerusalem; When
the peoples are gathered together, And the Kingdoms to serve
Yahweh. 35
What Deutero-Isaiah did was not to present the thought of
universalism 6 for the first time, but to relate it to the mission of
Israel. With him it was not a distant hope that one day the
peoples would spontaneously flock to Zion to learn the law of
God. He believed that the people of God was called to proclaim
that law. With him universalism was the corollary of mono-
theism and the world- wide mission of Israel the corollary of her
election. 'Turn into me and be saved, all the ends of the earth:
for I am God, and there is no other.' 7 'I Yahweh have called
thee in righteousness, and will hold thy hand, and will keep
1 Zech. 8.22 f.
2 Ps. 22.27 (Heb. 28). The Hebrew text reads 'before thee 1 , but the LXX, the
Vulgate, the Syriac and Jerome all read as above.
3 Ps. 117.1 f.
4 Ps. 96.1 ff., gf.
5 Ps. 102.15 f., 21 f. (Heb. 16 f., 22 f.).
6 It should be clear that the term 'universalism* is used here in the sense that the
religion of Yahwism was open for men of all nations, and not in the sense that
everyone will be saved. On particularism and universalism in post-exilic Judaism
cf. what I have wiitten in Israel's Mission to the World, 1939, pp. 39 ff.; also J.
Morgenstern, U.J.E., x, 1943, pp. 353 ff., and O. Eissfeldt, 7%.Z,..,lxxix, 1954,
cols. 283 f.
7 Isa. 45.22.
1 86 The Faith of Israel
thec, and give thee to be a covenant of the people, 1 to be a
light of the Gentiles/ 2 Ye are my witnesses, saith Yahweh, and
my servant whom I have chosen/ 3 Especially is this mission
associated with the Servant in the Servant Songs. *It is too light
a thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes
of Jacob, and to restore the preserved 4 of Israel: I will make
thee the light to the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach 5
unto the end of the earth.** The election of Israel, and of the
Servant in whom her mission is concentrated, is for universal
ends, and for the carrying of the light of the faith of Israel to the
ends of the earth.
The same thought is found in Trito-Isaiah, but whereas in
Deutero-Isaiah the Servant fulfils the mission in suffering and
death, in Trito-Isaiah the Gentiles are represented as serving
Israel and glorifying her, *I will send those of them who escape
unto the nations 7 . . . and isles afar off . . . ; and they shall
declare my glory among the nations. And they shall bring all
your brethren from all the nations as an offering unto Yahweh
... to my holy mountain Jerusalem.' 8 The book of Jonah, on
the contrary, rose to the full height of the thought of Deutero-
Isaiah, and here we have proclaimed the self-forgetting mission
of Israel even to her enemies, and the compassion of God upon
the heathen who repent and turn to him.
All this implies that the faith of Israel is not for her alone,
but that it may be shared by men of other nations and races,
who will join themselves to the Lord and to his people. Hence
we get the idea of the religious proselyte, who embraces the
faith of Israel. Such a proselyte was Ruth, who declared 'Thy
people shall be my people, and thy God my God. 59 Zechariah
contemplates proselytes in large numbers, 'And many Gentiles
shall join themselves to Yahweh in that day, and shall be his 10
1 This phrase has been much discussed. G. Quell (in Th.W.B., i, 1932, p. 34 n.)
renders *a covenant of humanity^ while R. Levy (Deutero-Isaiah, 1925, p. 147)
has *a universal covenant', referring to the Arabic t 8am, 'general*, 'universal*.
* Isa. 42.6. * Isa. 43.10. * The LXX here read 'the dispersed*.
fi The Hebrew could here be understood as in R.V. 'that thou mayest be my salva-
tion', or as above, with R.V. margin and R.S.V.
8 Isa. 49.6.
7 The Hebrew here inserts a list of nations, which is probably an expansion of the
oracle, either by the author or by a later hand, and which disturbs the rhythm.
Gf. L. Glahn and L. Koehler, Der Prophet der Heimkehr, 1934, pp. 238 f.
* Isa. 66.19 * &uth 1.16.
10 The Hebrew text here has 'and shall be to me for a people'. The reading of the
LXX is followed above.
The Day of the Lord 187
people.' 1 HL G. Mitchell observes that this means the accep-
tance of the invitation of Isa. 45.22 and the unlimited extension
of the Abrahamic covenant. 2 Similarly Trito-Isaiah says *The
foreigners, who join themselves to Yahweh, to serve him, and
to love the name of Yahweh, to be his servants ... I will
bring them to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my
house of prayer; ... for my house shall be called a house of
prayer for all peoples.' 8
In all this we should not forget that the Golden Age was
always conceived of as the Day of the Lord. While human
activity and the acceptance of her mission by Israel might do
something to prepare for that day, it could not itself produce
the Golden Age. That could only be God's gift to men, when
men were willing to fulfil the conditions on which alone he
could grant it, by submitting themselves to his will. When they
were so willing, he could give them a new heart, and give them
a unity which derived from the unity of his own wUL All their
conflicting interests and purposes could be reconciled in his
all-inclusive purpose for the world, and in that purpose the
ultimate well-being of all could alone be found.
All the passages in the Old Testament which present in
various ways the vision of the Golden Age, or of the Day of the
Lord, are commonly referred to as messianic. The term
Messiah is merely the Hebrew word for Anointed, and its
Greek equivalent is Christos> which becomes in English Christ.
By the time of our Lord there was a widespread expectation of
the coming of a Messiah who would fulfil all these prophecies,
and the Early Church indicated, by its application of the word
Christ to Jesus, that it believed that in him they found their
fulfilment. It should be remembered that though in that age
Messiah had become a technical term for the expected figure,
that term is not used in this connexion in the Old Testament. 4
The word itself is, indeed, found; but it is applied to kings 5 and
priests, 6 and even to the Persian king Cyrus. 7 It is not in the
. 3.x i . (Heb. 15).
2 Cf. Haggai and Zechariah (I.G.C.), 1912, p. 144.
8 Isa. 56.6 f.
4 In Dan. 9.25 f. A.V. renders the word mashiafi by Messiah, and so imports the
technical meaning into the term. R.V. corrects this and uses simply 'anointed
one*, and so R.S.V.
* Cf. e.g., I Sam. 24.7, n, 26.9.
8 Cf. e.g., Lev. 4.3, 6.15, Ps. 84.10 (Heb 11). 7 Isa. 45.1.
i88 The Faith of Israel
Old Testament a technical term for the expected deliverer, 1 and
it is wiser in dealing with, the Old Testament to avoid, as far as
possible, the use of the term. This is because the term has
particular, and narrower, associations than the whole range of
ideas about the Day of the Lord, which we find there. Jesus
himself was very reluctant to be called the Messiah, or Christ, 2
and though he acknowledged at his trial that he was indeed the
fulfilment of the hope of the Messiah, 3 he had earlier forbidden
his disciples to speak of Mm by this name. 4
In some of the passages which present the hope of the Old
Testament we find a Davidic leader figuring as the divine
representative in universal government. This is the case in two
passages from the book of Isaiah which have already been
referred to, 5 and which have frequently been denied to that
prophet. 8 Not a few scholars are today unconvinced of the
soundness of that denial. 7 For our purpose it matters little
whether Isaiah or another composed them, since they are in
any case an expression of the faith of Israel, as it is enshrined
in the sacred collection of her literature. *A shoot shall come
forth from the stock of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall
bear fruit/ 8 Of the equity of his rule, in accordance with all
that has been said about the character of the Golden Age, we
are given clear word. 'He shall not judge by appearances,
neither give decision according to hearsay: but with justice
1 It is probable that in some of the psalms the term had associations with the later
technical use, and was applied both to the reigning Icing and to the ideal king,
who was set before him as an example.
* Luke 441 ; cf. Mark 1.24 f., 3.11 f. 8 Mark 14.61 f.; Matt. 126.63 f.
4 Mark 8.29 f.; Matt. 16.20; Luke 9.20 f. * Isa 9.2 ff. (Heb. i ff.), n.i ff.
8 So K. Marti Jesaja (K.H.C.), 1900, pp. 94 ff., 113 f.; G, B. Gray, Isaiah (I.G.C.),
i, pp. 167 ff., 213 f., followed by S. B. Frost, Old Testament Apocalyptic, 1952, p. 68.
Margaret Crook (JJUL, xvi, 1948, pp. 155 ff.) argues that both passages are
pre-Isaianic, having been composed for the accession of Joash, while H. L.
Ginsberg (in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume, 1950, pp. 357 ff.) holds that Isa. 9.2 ff.
(Hcb. i ff.) comes from the time of Josiah.
7 So B. Duhm, C. Comill, G. W, Wade, G. H. Box, E. Sellin, H. Schmidt, O.
Procksch, J, Fischer, E. J. Kissane, A. H. Edelkoort, L. Dennefeld and J. Stein-
mann (for references cf. The Unity of the Bible, p. 87 n.). To these may be added
O. G. Whitehouse, Isaiah (Cent, B.), i, pp. 151 ff., 174, because of his careful
reply to the arguments of Marti. Oesterley and Robinson (Introduction to the Books
of the Old Testament, pp. 245 f.) accept Isa. 9.2 ff. (Heb. i ff.) as Isaianic, but not
i i.i ff., while O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1934, pp. 357 ff, holds
the former passage to be probably Isaianic and the latter probably not. A. Alt
(in Festscknft Alfred Bertholet, 1950, pp. 29 ff.) holds the former passage to be
Isaianic. It will be seen that these writers belong to different schools, and it may
be added that their number might be substantially added to.
8 Isa. ii. i.
The Day of the Lord 189
shall lie judge the needy, and give decision with equity for the
meek of the earth . . . righteousness shall be the girdle of his
loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his waist/ 1 Of the universal
significance of his rule we are told in the closing words of the
passage. Tor the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Yahweh,
as the waters cover the sea.* 2 These words are found again in
almost identical form in the book of Habakkuk, 3 where they
are thought by many to be quoted from Isaiah. Whether they
are original to the passage in Isaiah is questioned by many
scholars, but if they were added before they were cited in
Habakkuk the addition is very early, and if they are not
original it is certain that they were added because they were
felt to be appropriate. They do not specifically state that the
rule of the Scion of David was to be universal, but at least they
make it clear that the consequences of his rule would be
universal. The other passage promises the birth of a child of the
line of David. 'To us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the
government shall be upon his shoulder . . . Of the increase of
his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the
throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to
uphold it with justice and righteousness from henceforth even
for ever.' 4
In the book of Micah we find a similar passage which
promises a ruler of Bethlehemite ancestry whose rule shall
extend to all the earth, but whose rule shall be exercised in the
name of God and in his power. 'But thou, Bethlehem Ephra-
thah, which art the smallest among the thousands of Judafa,
out of thee shall one come forth unto me to be ruler in Israel;
whose lineage is from of old, from everlasting . . . And he
shall stand, and shall rule in the strength of Yahweh, in the
majesty of the name of Yahweh his God: and they shall endure;
for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.' 5 This
passage, with its reference to Judah rather than to David the
latter being indicated only obliquely by the mention of Bethle-
hem reminds us of the passage in the Blessing of Jacob in
Gen. 49 : 'The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, Nor the
ruler's staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh come; And
unto him shall the peoples yield obedience.' 6 It is not necessary
1 Isa 1 1.3 ff. * Isa. 6.9. * Hab. 2.14. * Isa. 9.6 f. (Heb. 5 ).
a Micah 5.2, 4 (Heb. I, 3). 8 Gen. 49.10.
I go The Faith of Israel
for us here to examine the much discussed and problematical
phrase 'until SMloh come*, which could be rendered 'until he
come to SHloh^ or, with different vowels, 'until he come whose
it is*. 1 However this famous crux is treated, the passage thinks
of a Judahite ruler, whose sway will extend beyond the borders
of his own land, and it is not surprising that it has been brought
into association with the other passages at which we are
looking. 2
Of the Davidic line of the expected leader we have evidence
again in Jeremiah. 'Behold the days come, saith Yahweh, when
I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign
prudently as king, and shall execute justice and righteousness in
the land.' 8 Here, however, nothing is said about the universality
of his rale. This does not imply any diversity of conception,
since it would be unreasonable to ask that any writer should
express the whole of his thought in every utterance. The char-
acter of the rule is described in terms of righteousness, precisely
as in the other oracles where universality is also mentioned. In
a passage in the book of Ezekiel, where the Davidic king is
depicted, we find the emphasis on the peace and security which
he will bring, and on the economic bliss which will mark the
age of his rule, together with a reference to a new covenant,
which reminds us of Jeremiah's New Covenant, 4 though it is
couched in different terms. *I will set up one shepherd over
them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David . . . And
I Yahweh will be their God, and my servant David shall be
prince among them . . . And I will make with them a cove-
nant of peace . . . and they shall dwell securely in the wilder-
ness, and sleep in the woods . . . And the trees of the field
1 It may suffice to refer to J. Skinner, Genesis (I.C.G.), 1910, pp. 5121 ff., H. E.
Kyle, Genesis (Camb. B.), 1921 ed., pp. 430 f., p. Procksch, Genesis (K.A.T.),
and ed., 1924, pp. 276 ff., E. Konig, Die rwsswnischen Weissagungen des Alien
Testaments, 1925, pp. 97 ff., L. Dennefeld, Le Messianisme, 1929, pp. 26 ff., A. H.
Edelkoort, De Chnstus-verwachting in het Oude Testament, 1941, pp. 82 iff., J. Lind-
blom, in Congress Volume (Supp. to F.T., i), 1953, pp. 78 ff. F. Notscher (Z.A.W.,
xlvii (N.F. vi), 1929, pp. 323 f.) connects shiloh with Accadian *selu } and finds the
meaning to be *ruler*.
a Ryle (op. cit., p. 431) thinks *the Messianic hope is here indicated in its earliest
and simplest form, although its primary application may be to the dynasty of
David.* Gf. S. R. Driver (Genesis (West G.), 1904, p. 386) : 'The clause, viewed in
relation to its context, does seem to contain a Messianic thought*. A. von Gall,
on the other hand, thinks the clause is a gloss, which has nothing whatever to do
with the future King (cf, Basileia ton Theou, 1926, p. 35).
f jer. 23.5, *Jer. 31.31 ff.
The Day of the Lord igi
shall yield their fruit, and the earth shall yield its produce, and
they shall be secure in their land. 31 Here we note that there is
no reference to the universality of the kingdom. In Deutero-
Zechariah, however, we find all the elements together. 'Re-
joice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout for joy, O daughter of
Jerusalem: behold, thy king comes to thee: righteous and saving
is he, lowly, and riding upon an ass . . And he shall speak
peace unto the nations: and his dominion shall be from sea to
sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.' 2 Here we have
only the fact that he is Jerusalem's king to suggest that he is of
the Davidic line. Universal dominion, universal peace, and
universal justice are more clearly indicated as the features of
this Golden Age.
This last passage is closely similar to some verses in Ps. 72,
which has been traditionally interpreted as one of the 'mes-
sianic' psalms. Its theme is clearly some Israelite king, actual or
ideal. 'Give the king thy justice, O God, And thy rightousness
unto the king's son 5 . 8 His rule is described in terms so similar
to those of various passages at which we have looked that it is
hard not to think that it belongs to the same realm of ideas.
'He shall judge thy people with righteousness, And thy poor
with justice . . . And shall crush the oppressor. They shall
fear thee 4 while the sun endures, And so long as the moon,
throughout all generations ... In his days shall the righteous
flourish; And peace abound, till the moon be no more. He shall
have dominion from sea to sea, And from the River unto the
ends of the earth . , . There shall be abundance of corn in the
earth, upon the top of the mountains it shall wave 5 . . . His
name shall endure for ever; his name shall be continued as
long as the sun: And men shall invoke blessing through him;
All nations shall call him happy.' 6 Here the phrase rendered
'shall invoke blessing' is the reflexive verb used in the passages
concerning Abraham, which have been noted above. It will be
seen that all of the elements of the description of the Day of the
Lord are to be found here the universality and permanence of
1 Ezek. 34.23 ff. * Zech. 9.9 f. * Ps. 72.1.
4 The reading of the LXX 'he shall prolong (his life)* is followed by R.S.V., and is
perhaps to be preferred.
5 This word stands with what follows according to the Massoretic accents, but
rhythm favours its construction with what precedes.
Ps. 62.2, 4 1, 7 f., 16 f.
1 92 The Faith of Israel
peace s judgement and deliverance, economic bliss, righteous
and world-wide dominion*
It would carry us too far to examine all of the so-called
'messianic' psalms, and it must suffice to say that there is reason
to believe that while they may have been royal psalms, used in
the royal rites of the temple, they were also 'messianic*. They
held before the king the ideal king, both as Ms inspiration and
guide for the present, and as the hope of the future. 1 If such a
view is correct it would follow that they go back to pre-exilic
days, and they would appear to offer some confirmation for the
view that the great hope of the Day of the Lord and of the
Golden Age was no late development in Israel.
Not all of the features of the Day of the Lord are found in
every one of these pictures. This no more indicates that the
unmentioned features would be repudiated by the authors than
an artist's painting of a man's head and shoulders implies an
intention to suggest that he had no legs and feet. In the passage
duplicated in Isaiah and Micah there is no reference to the
Davidic leader, or, indeed, to any human leader. The same
thing is true of the passage in Trito-Isaiah, already referred to,
which begins Tor behold, I create new heavens and a new
earth: and the former things shall not be remembered, nor
come into mind', 2 and which ends with the promise 'They shall
not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain, saith Yahweh,' 8
So, too, in the familiar prophecy of the New Covenant in Jere-
miah, and in the promises of Deutero-Isaiah. Jeremiah says
'This is the covenant which I will make with the house of
Israel after those days, saith Yahweh; I will put my law within
them, and in their hearts will I write it; and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people; and they shall no more teach every
man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know
Yahweh: for they shall all know me, from the least of them to
the greatest of them, saith Yahweh : for I will forgive their
iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more/ 4 Here the
thought does not go beyond Israel, but the conception is of
complete obedience to the will of God throughout the com-
munity, with the law of God inscribed on the hearts of all and
1 Cf, A. R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel, 1955 (issued while the present
work was in the press) .
* Isa. 65.17. * Isa. 65.25, * Jer. 31.33 ff.
The Day of the Lord 193
therefore expressing itself in every side of their life, and we are
in the same realm of ideas as in the whole group of passages we
are considering. Here we are reminded of a passage in the book
of Ezekiei, where also there is no reference to the Davidic
leader, but where we find the promise of a new hearts leading
to obedience to the will of God, and its issue in economic bliss.
*A new heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within
you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh,
and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within
you, and cause you to walk according to my statutes, and
ye shall keep my ordinances, and do them . . . And I will
multiply the fruit of the tree, and the produce of the field,
that ye shall no more suffer the reproach of famine among the
nations. 51
Deutero-Isaiah brings the element of universality and of
judgement into his picture, when he says 'Instruction shall go
forth from me, and my ordinance 2 as a light of the peoples. I
will swiftly bring near 3 my righteousness; my salvation is gone
forth, and my arms shall judge the peoples: 4 the isles shall wait
for me, and for my arms shall they hope 5 . . . For the heavens
shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wear out like
a garment . . . But my salvation shall be for ever, and my
righteousness shall not be overcome.' 6 The passage from Trito-
Isaiah, which Jesus read in the synagogue at Nazareth, 7
defines 'the acceptable year of Yahweh* by which what is
elsewhere called the Day of Yahweh is meant as 'the day of
vengeance of our God'. 8 Here we see the element of judgement.
Yet this is not the only element, as it would appear to be from
the passage in Amos with which we started. For the prophet is
sent c to comfort all who mourn; to bring to the mourners in
Zion, to give them a garland instead of ashes, the oil of joy
1 Ezek. 36.26 f., 30.
2 The word mtshpdt here probably means 'the principles of true religion 5 , as in
Isa. 42.1, 3 (see below, p. 197, 114). Gf. The Biblical Doctrine of Election, p. 117 n.
3 This rendering follows the LXX in transferring the last word of verse 4 to the
beginning of the following verse. Some editors then render: *In a moment my
righteousness (or victory) is near', while others add one letter to the word *near*
to convert it to a verb, and render as above.
4 The meaning here is that the nation which is in the right shall be given the
decisive aid of the arm of God.
5 i.e., 'for my support they shall look'; they shall look to God for their vindication
and deliverance.
8 Isa. 5 1. 4 if. 7 Luke4.i6ff. 8 Isa. 61.2.
1 94 The Faith of Israel
Instead of mourning^ the garment of praise instead of the faint-
Ing spirit; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the
planting of Yahweh 5 that he might be glorified.' 1 Fewer of the
elements of the total picture of the Day of the Lord are found
here, where the thought does not go beyond Israel, the Gentiles
only figuring as the servants of Israel in the following verses, and
where the emphasis lies in a message of comfort for harassed
people rather than on the obedience to the will of God in which
the basis of the comfort was to be found.
There is one passage which became of particular importance
in later thought because of its use of the phrase 'son of man 9 .
This phrase is found several times elsewhere in the Old Testa-
ment, indeed. In Ps. 8 we find *What is man that thou remem-
berest him, and the son of man that thou shouldst care for him.' 2
Here it is simply an alternative expression for 'man'. In the
book of Ezekiel, we find the prophet frequently addressed as
'son of man', where it similarly means 'man'. In Dan. 7 we
have the story of the seer's vision of the beasts arising from the
sea, and of the judgement scene in which the Ancient of Days
passed judgement on the beasts, followed by the coming with
the clouds of heaven of 'one like unto a son of man', 3 to whom an
everlasting and universal dominion was given. 4 This is quite
clearly a different conception from the Davidic leader, since
here we have not merely the absence of mention of the line of
David, but the son of man comes down from above. In the
following verses we are given the interpretation of the vision,
and here the 'son of man' is not described in individual terms
at all, but is clearly declared to be a symbol for the saints of the
Most High as invested with power. 5 The kingdoms symbolized
by the beasts arose from below, and their ignoble nature was
expressed in the form of the beasts. The enduring kingdom was
from above, 6 and its superior character was symbolized by a
human form. It is sometimes said that the saints were already
in the vision before the coming of the son of man. 7 This is true.
l lsa. 6i.af. * Ps. 8.4 (Heb. 5).
8 Dan. 7.13. 4 Dan. 7.14. 5 Dan. 7.27.
T. W. Manson (B.J.R.L> xxxii, 1949-50, p. 174) maintains that the Son of Man
does not come from heaven, as is usually supposed, but goes to heaven on the
clouds, there to receive the kingdom.
7 Cf. O. Zockler, Daniel (Lange's Bibelwerk), E. Tr. by J. Strong, 1876, p. 157 b;
C. Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel, 1923, p. 59; E. G. Kraeling, in
Oriental Studies in honour ofCvrsetji Erachji Pavry, 1933, P* 2 3-
The Day of the Lord 195
They were there as suffering and persecuted. It is the kingdom
of the saints, or the saints as invested with power ^ that is represented
by the 'son of man*. 1
The character of this kingdom is similar to the character of
the rule of the Davidic leader in the passages at which we have
looked. It is a universal and enduring kingdom, and since it is
administered by the saints of the Most High., it is thought of as
embodying his perfect will. It is therefore the kingdom of God,
rather than of the saints, though the divine rule is exercised
through them. 'And the kingdom and the dominion, and the
greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be
given to the people of the saints of the Most High: their 2
kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall
serve and obey them/ 3
In insisting that the 'son of man* is distinct from the Davidic
leader, I have no thought of removing the whole passage from
association with the passages at which we have looked. It is
clear that the general thought is of the Golden Age precisely
as in those other passages. It may well be that the author did
not contemplate a kingdom without a human leader, and most
probable indeed that he did expect a leader to be raised up. 4 I
would no more exclude this from his thought than I would
exclude from the other pictures at which we have looked the
elements which are unspecified. But whether he thought of a
leader or not, it is improbable that the 'son of man' was
thought of as that leader, or as identified with the Davidic
leader. 5 We know that in the intertestamental period, which
lies outside the range of our present thought, the Son of Man
1 Cf, my Darius the Mede, 1935, p. 63 n.
2 R.V. has 'his kingdom*, but it is more probable that the pronoun in the Hebrew
refers to 'the people', and so could be rendered in English by 'its', or better by
'their'.
3 Dan. 7.27.
4 Cf. The Servant of the Lord, p. 62 : 'It is improbable that he thought of the kingdom
of the saints as without any leader and head; but he was not concerned with the
person of that head, but only with the thought of the kingdom which he sym-
bolized by this figure.'
5 A. Feuillet (R.B., be, 1953, p. 330) observes that Daniel 'ne rattache pas expli-
citement son Messie transcendant a la dynastic davidique et ne prononce pas
une seule fois le nom de David, alors que Toccasionlui en tait si souvent offerte',
and suggests that this was due to the circumstances of his day. 'En ces peYiodes
troubles, ou les Juifs subissaient depuis longtemps le joug de la domination
dtrangere, il n'y avait aucune apparence que puisse jamais renaitre de ces cendres
la dynastic davidique'. I am less concerned to speculate why he does not mention
the Davidic Messiah than to recognize the fact that he does not.
1 96 The Faith of Israel
figured in the expectations of men, 1 and we know from the
New Testament that the phrase was found on the lips of Jesus
during Ms ministry. There are some passages where scholars
have claimed that the meaning is no more than 'man 5 , as in
some of the Old Testament passages mentioned. There are
some passages where Professor Manson has argued that the
phrase stands for the coming kingdom, precisely as in Dan.
7i3- 2 On the other hand there are some passages where Jesus
uses the term of himself. That he did not mean by this to
identify himself with the Davidic Messiah, and knew that
people would not so understand the term, is clear from the fact
that whereas he forbade his followers to breathe a word to
anyone about his being the Davidic Messiah, 8 he quite openly
used this term of himself. 4 That he believed himself to be the
Davidic Messiah is sure. But it would have been plain nonsense
for him to suppress the use of the one term and yet to use the
other, if the two terms were synonymous. That they have be-
come synonymous for us is the result of his ministry.
For the understanding of his use of the term Son of Man we
should remember that concept of corporate personality, at
which we have earlier looked. 5 He could think of himself as
concentrating in himself the kingdom, whose representative
he was. That thought on the Son of Man had individualized
this term in the intertestamental period is probable enough, and
Professor Manson finds the same fluidity in its use in i Enoch. 6
But it represents a different line of approach to the conception
of the Day of the Lord, whose fusion with the Davidic leader
1 On the figure of the Son of Man in I Enoch cf. N. Messel, Der Menschensohn in
dm Bilderreden des Henoch, 1922; E. Sjoberg, Der Menschensohn im dthiopischm
Henochbuch, 1946; T. W. Manson, B.J.R.L., xxxii, 1949-50, pp. 171 ff.; cf. also
The Servant oj the Lord, pp. 74 ff., and the literature there cited.
2 Cf. The Teaching of Jesus, and ed., 1935, p. 227; Coniectanea NeoUstamentica, xi,
1947, pp. 138 ff.; and B.J.R.L., loc. cit., pp. 190 ff.
* Mark 8.30; Matt. 16.20; Luke 9.21.
4 Some have denied that Jesus used this term of himself. So J. Wellhausen, Skizzen
und Vorarbeiten, vi, 1899, pp. 187 ff.; G. S. Patton, J.R., ii, 1922, pp. 501 ff.;
S. J. Case, J,5X,, xlvi, 1927, pp. i ff. It is hard, however, to suppose that the
early Church invented this ascription of the term to him, since it does not appear
to have been used in the early Church, and outside the Gospels it stands in the
New Testament only in Acts 7.56. Cf. G. Kittel, Deutsche Theologie, 1936, p. 173,
where it is said that the denial of the use of this term to Jesus only increases our
problems.
* Cf. The Biblical Doctrine oj Election, p. 157; also T. W. Manson, B.J.R.L., loc. cit.,
p. 191.
1 Ibid.,
pp. 188 f.
The Day of the Lord 197
should not be pushed back earlier than the time of Christ* That
both Davidic Messiah and Son of Man were found side by side
on the lips of the circles interested in apocalyptic is not to be
denied; but that they were identified is a thesis which makes
nonsense of the Gospels. The one term emphasized the human
agency through whom the kingdom was expected to be estab-
lished; the other emphasized the divine origin of the kingdom
and its establishment by the divine breaking into history in
judgement and power.
Yet another figure is familiar in our thought and calk for
mention. This is the figure of the Suffering Servant of Deutero-
Isaiah, at which we have looked in another connexion. There is
little to connect the Servant superficially with the Davidic
leader, and it is not surprising that there is no solid evidence that
the two were identified in pre-Christian times, 1 and definite
evidence in the New Testament that the two figures were not
identified until they were brought together in the thought of
our Lord. 2 This does not mean that the two conceptions were
wholly unrelated. I have elsewhere said that I think both
derived ultimately from the royal rites, but that they developed
different aspects of those rites. 3 The mission of the Servant was
to set justice 4 in the earth and to give his law to men. 6 He is thus
thought of as instrumental in bringing about that state of
universal worship of the God of Israel which figures in the hopes
at which we have looked. We find here no description of the
life of that kingdom in gowing terms. Moreover, we find here
1 Cf. The Servant of the Lord, pp. 61 ff. ( O.T.S., viil, 1950, pp. 100 ff.), where I
examine this question.
2 See below, p. 200.
8 Cf. The Servant of the Lord, pp. 85 ff. (Q.T.S., viii, pp. 133 ff.).
4 'Justice', or 'judgement' probably here stands for 'true religion', whose universal
acceptance would bring life into accord with the will of God, and therefore mean
universal justice and righteousness. Gf. K. Marti, Jesaja (K.H.G.), 1900, p. 286,
and R. Levy, Deutero-lsaiah, 1925, p. 144. N. H. Snaith (Studies in Old Testament
Prophecy, ed. by H. H. Rowley, 1950, pp. 193 f.) thinks the thought is of the divine
execution of justice upon the Gentiles, for which they wait with dread. G.
Ostborn ( Tor a in the Old Testament, 1945, pp. 57 f.) finds instead royal traits in the
Servant here, and thinks of kingly law, and the royal execution of justice. J.
Begrich (Studien zu Deutero-lsaiah, 1938, pp. 161 ff.) thinks^ the meaning is that
God's pardon of Israel will be announced to the world by a judicial decision, and
brings the figures of the breaking of the reed and the extinguishing of the smoking
flax into association with this. He says there was a custom by which sentences
were pronounced in the street, when a staff was broken and the lamp of the
person condemned was extinguished. This is more ingenious than convincing,
though it is accepted by U. Simon, A Theology of Salvation, 1953, p. 83.
5 Isa. 42.4.
1 98 The Faith of Israel
that the mission of the Servant involves Mm in dire suffering,
and that the suffering is the organ whereby he fulfils his mission*
I gave my back to the scourgers, and my cheeks to them that
plucked out the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spit-
ting.' 1 *He was despised, and forsaken of men; a man of pains,
and familiar with suffering . . . But he bore our sufferings,
and endured our pains: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten
of God, and afflicted. But he was pierced through our trans-
gressions, he was crushed through our iniquities: the correction
for our welfare fell upon him; and with his stripes we are
healed.* 2 All this is very different from the way in which the
Davidic leader is depicted. The death of the Servant is said to
be a sin offering 3 for those whose hearts are so moved by his
sufferings that they humbly confess their sin and acknowledge
that his death should be theirs. 4 They therefore bring to the
offering the spirit which we have seen to be essential to the
validation of sacrifice. They then become aware that he has
borne their iniquities and that through him they are justified.
Nothing like this is said of the Davidic leader, and it cannot be
regarded as one of the unmentioned features of the Scion of
David in the other pictures. Here it is so fundamental that the
mission of the Servant is to be achieved through suffering, and
there so essential that it is to be achieved through dominion.
It has been said that the Servant is probably to be inter-
preted as both collective and individual. The suffering saints
in Daniel appear to be identified with the Servant. For Dan.
12.3 is probably marked by references to the fourth Servant
Song. 'They who are wise shall shine as the brightness of the
firmament, and they who turn many to righteousness as the
stars for ever and ever.' Here *they who are wise' may be an
allusion to 'Behold, my servant shall deal wisely' ; 5 and 'they
who turn many to righteousness' an allusion to c my righteous
servant shall justify many'. 6 Moreover, there is one passage in
Deutero-Zechariah, which speaks of an individual who is
1 Isa. 50.6. a Isa. 53.3 ff. a Isa. 53.10. * Isa. 53.6.
s Isa. 52.13. R.S.V. here renders by 'shall prosper*. While this is a possible render-
ing, since wisdom commonly leads to success, this rendering conceals the link
with Dan. 12.3, where the participle of the same verb is used.
9 Isa. 53.11. On the difficulties of this text cf. The Unity of the Bible, p. 56 n. They
do not affect our present use of it, since there is no reason to question the reading
'My servant shall make many righteous', where the terms are similar to those in
Dan. 12.3, which could equally be rendered 'they who make many righteous*.
The Day of the Lord 1 99
pierced and slain, and whose death is associated with the in-
auguration of the kingdom of God. s And I will pour out upon
the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the
spirit of pity and of intercession; and they shall look on him
whom they have pierced 5 . 1 Here the Massoretic text reads
'upon me', but most editors favour the reading 'upon him*,
which is represented in some manuscripts, and which is
followed in the New Testament quotation of the passage in
John 19.37. Following this death we read *In that day a foun-
tain shall be opened for the house of David and for the inhabi-
tants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness/ 2
while soon after we read of the assembling of the nations against
Jerusalem, 3 until the Lord shall arise against them and in-
augurate his kingdom. 4 'And Yahweh shall be king over all the
earth.' 5 Professor Dennefeld thought this passage about the
pierced one is another form of the prophecy of the Suffering
Servant of Isa. 53. 6 It would certainly appear to be moving in
the same realm of ideas, though it lacks many of the elements of
that great passage. Like Isa. 53, it offers evidence of the thought
of the death of a sufferer as associated with the coming of the
Day of the Lord; but it offers none to identify that sufferer with
the Davidic leader.
All of these approaches to the thought of the Day of the Lord
belong together in that they are associated with the establish-
ment of the coming kingdom. The Davidic leader, the Son of
Man, the Suffering Servant, all in different ways are linked with
the coming of the day when men's hearts shall be changed and
brought into harmony with God's will, and universal peace and
righteousness come amongst men. Similarly with the other
passages, where none of these figures are found, we have the
thought of the kingdom of God. It is therefore in no way sur-
prising that all of these passages were cherished by the people
who embraced the hope of the coming of that kingdom. The
community from which the non-biblical texts amongst the
Qumran Scrolls originated was clearly deeply interested in
such passages. Here, as in other intertestamental works, the
Messiah figures as a technical term for the expected deliverer.
Moreover, it is not surprising that the community whose
1 Zech. 12.10. 2 Zech. 13.1. 3 Zech. 14.1
1 Zech. 12.10. a Zech. 13.1. - Zech. 14.1.
4 Zech. 14.3 flf. 5 Zech. 14.9. e Gf. Le Messianisnw, 1929, p.
153-
The Faith of Israel
revered leader, the Teacher of Righteousness, appears to have
been martyred 1 should have turned to Isa. 53 and thought of
the Suffering Servant. Similarly it is not surprising that Messiah
and Son of Man should be found side by side in i Enoch. There
is no reason to suppose that these figures were identified in
thought already, however. It has been said that the New
Testament offers evidence that Messiah and Son of Man had
not been identified in popular thought before the ministry of
Jesus. The New Testament offers similar evidence that the
Suffering Servant and the Messiah had not been identified.
For even after the followers of Jesus were convinced that he
was the Messiah, they were completely nonplussed by the
suggestion that he must suffer. 2 Clearly this was a novel and
unthinkable idea to them.
Nevertheless, just because all of these figures were linked
together by their association with the coming kingdom, their
fusion in the mind of Christ was not something wholly arbitrary
and unprepared for. In gathering them all into himself he
modified each by the others, and while it is the faith of the
Church that he is the fulfilment of all these hopes, there are
many details which he has not fulfilled. For the fulfilment of
many of those details the Church looks to the Second Coming. 3
To the Church, which stands between the Advent and the
Second Advent, there is a long time process between the one
and the other, but to prophets who saw the future afar off the
depth in time was lost, as depth in space is lost to the eye of one
who looks at the stars, and the First Advent and the Second
Advent are therefore fUsed in prophecy.
In the opening lecture I said that in Christ the vision of the
1 Gf. A. Dupont-Sommer, F.T., i, 1951, pp. 200 ff. This is disputed by some,
however,
2 Cf. Mark 8.31 ff, 9.30 f.; Matt. 16.21 ff.; Luke 9,44 f., 18.32 ff., 24.24 ff.
3 Many Christians have lost all real belief in the Second Advent, and have
eliminated it from the teaching of Jesus. So, e,g., T. F. Glasson, The Second
Advent, 1945. This tendency is partly due to the follies to which the expectation of
the Second Advent has led those who have believed they could calculate from
the Bible precisely when it would take place and what form it would take, despite
the express warning of the New Testament itself (cf. Mark 13.21, 32 f.; Matt.
24.23 f., 36; Luke 21.5). I have more than once expressed my dissent from this
reaction, though I equally reject the claim to be able to define the place, time and
manner of the Second Advent. Cf. The Relevance of Apocalyptic, 2nd ed., pp. 148 ff,
and The Unity of the Bible, pp. no f. I share the view of O. Cullmann (Le Retour
du Christ, espfrance de l*glise naissante, 1943, pp. 12 f.,E. Tr. by S, Godman in
The Early Church, 1955, p. 141 f.), that the rejection of this hope is a mutilation
of the message of the New Testament.
The Day of the Lord 20 1
Suffering Servant was realized. The vision of a world in en-
during peace, bound together in a common rule marked by
perfect justice and full accord with the will of God, with all its
life resting on a universal resort to his house and submission to
his law, is one which is yet far from realized. Yet here the Old
Testament has enduring importance for men. The desire for
peace and well-being has not lost its fascination for men; but
they pay less heed to the foundations of the kingdom as set
forth, in the Bible. The New Testament says 'Seek first Ms king-
dom and his righteousness; and all these things shall be yours
also', 1 where the 'these things' are the supply of physical needs.
The same message is declared insistently in all the passages in
the Old Testament which look forward to the Day of the Lord
and the establishment of his kingdom. And all is based on the
unwavering faith of Israel, that man was created in the image
of God, for his fellowship and obedience, and that only as he
fulfils the purpose of his being can his true well-being be
found, and that because he is both an individual and a member
of society, his well-being is bound up with that of society, so that
only in the universal well-being can his complete and secure
well-being be found. In the higher reaches of Old Testament
thought this produced a deep concern for the well-being of
others, not alone for selfish reasons, but through the sharing of
the divine thought and the sense of a divinely given mission to
the world. To all who inherit the Old Testament, whether
Jews or Christians, it comes with its summons to share that
deep concern. The early Church felt it, and the modern Church
has felt it. Yet how partially! And how little does the world,
with all its anxiety for itself and its future, heed the great
message of this book, that if it would but forget itself in its
desire to seek God and to understand and do his will it would
best serve itself. In losing itself to him, it would find itself in
him.
1 Matt. 6.33.
INDEXES
(a) SUBJECTS
Aaron, 38 f.
Abaddon, 160
Abel, 34, 89, 112, 114
Abimelech, 31,52
Abraham, 101, 117, 128, 134, 153 f.,
182 f., 187, 191
Achan, 63, 100, io6f.
Adam, 24, 60, 75, 89, 90 n., 156
'Adhonai, 53
Adonis, 162 f.
Adultery, 130
Afterlife, 116, 150 ff.; in N.T., 151 f.
Ahab, 38, 60, 97, 112
Ahijah, 33, 127
Allah, 124
Allatu, 159
Allegorizing, 14
Altar, 1 8 n.
*5mm, 1 86 n.
Amos, 25, 26, 30, 32 f., 48, 65, 71 n., 82,
89* 9* > 101 f., 117, 128, 136, 143, 148,
I55 J 77^> 193; (call of), lot
*anak t 33 n.
Anath, 133 n.
Anath-bethel, 133 n.
Anath-yahu, 133 n.
Ancient of Days, 194
Angels, 44 n., 75, 79 f., 81, 161
Anna, 143 . " '
Anthropomorphism, 60, 67, 70, 75, 91
Antiochus Epiphanes, 83
Apocalypse, 152
Apocalypse of Moses, 156
Apocalyptic, 180
Arabian prophecy, 33
Arabic, 27 n., 159 n., 186 n.
Arallu, 158
Araunah, 44 n.
Ark, 1 01
Armada (Spanish), 40
* ash dm, 46 n.
Ashimah, 133 n.
Ashtarkemosh, 19 n.
Assyria, 35, 44, 61, 73, 80 f.
Athaliah, 142
Atheism, 49 f.
Atonement (Day of), 95, 102
Ba'al, 52
Baal, 38, 51 n., 52 f., 77, 103 n., 117
Babel (Tower of), 60, 75
Babylon, Babylonia, 29 f., 51, 112 f,,
140, 158 f.
Baruch, 36 n., 136
bodar^ 84 n.
Bathsheba, 88 f., 91, 97, 101
Beliar, 80
Bethel, 31 f. } no, 136, 141 n.
Bethlehem, 189
Beth-shan, 155
Blood revenge, 1 7 f.
Boaz, 19 n.
Book (sacred), 35 f., 141
Brazen Serpent, 77
Buddha, 39
Buddhism, 151
Bull images, 77 f.
Byblos, 37
Gain, 60, 89, 112, 123
Canaanite religion, 15 f., 19 n., 52 f.,
65 f., 77, 92 f., 161 ff.
Canaanites, 43, 52
China, 52, 54
Chronicler, 142
Community and individual, 99 ff.
Compassion, 129 f.; of God, 62, 73,
130 f., 186
Consecration, 135
Corporate personality, 1 18, 196
Covenant, 16 n., 20, 68 if., 130, 135,
187; (Book of), 1 8 n., 128; (New),
36, 105, 190, 192
Creation, 24, 60, 74 f., 81
Dagon, 51 n.
Dan (Shrine of), 78
Daniel (Book of), 32, 147, 161, 167 f.,
. ff., 198
169 f., 179, 194 ]
David, 25, 31 n., 60, 67, 88, 89, 91,
96 f., 101, 107, 112, 153 n., 158, 189 f.,
Davidic Messiah, 188 ff., 195 n., 196,
197 f., 199
Day of the Lord, 176 ff.
Dead Sea Scrolls, 25 n., 166 n., 1 80 n.,
199
Death, 1 50 ,170, 175
Deborah, 26, 43 f.
Decalogue, 76, 113, 125 f., 130, 141 f.;
Ritual Decalogue, 76, 125, 141 f.
Desert and fortune, 103, 109 ff,, 1 14 f.,
181
203
204
Indexes
Deutero-Isaiah, 25, 71, 72 n., 90 n., 1 18,
120, 123, 124 n., 1 66 n. 182, 184 n.,
185 f., 193
Deuteronomic school, 34, 72, 90, 109,
18411.
Deutcronomist (D), 69 n., 126 f.
Deuteronomy (Book of), 25, 64, 109,
113, 125, 127, 129, 135* 144; (Law
of), 19 n., 144
Deutero-Zechariah, 191, 198 f.
Devotion to God, 62, 70, 130
Disruption, 127
Divination, 27 E, 138; (Chinese),
29 n.; in Babylonia, 29 f.; (Prophets
and), 30
Divining cup, 30
Dreams, 31 f.
Eccle&iastes, 158
Ecciesiasticus, 88 n.
Ecstasy, 37 f. rt ^
Eden (Garden of), 24, 60, 75, 81, 87,
89, 90 n., 150, 155
Edom, 19 n., 155
Egypt, Egyptians, 37, 40 ff., 51, 53,
55 f., 58, 62 f., 68, 77, 93> # Il6 >
126 f., 129, 161
*El, 5 2
Election, 13 n., 20, 48, 55 f., 63, 67 ff.,
73 ; (response to), 68 f.
Elephantine, 132 f.
Elijah, 60, 99, 101, 103 n., 112, 117
Elisha,58
Elizabeth II, 22
'JEloah, 23 n., 51
'EUMto, 5*
Elohist (E), 68 n., 69 n., 142 n., i8sn.
El Shaddai, 52
'Etyfa, 51 f.
'emeth, 66, 1 13 n., 135 n., 160 n.
'emtinah, 66, i6on.
Endor, 156, 158
Enoch, 101, 173; (First Book of), 196,
200
Ephraim, 70
Esdraelon (Vale of), 43
Ethical quality of Israel's Faith, 59 f.,
126 ff.
Ethiopia, 184
Exodus, 40 ff., 45, 55 ff., 62 f., 64, 67,
71, 93; (Book of), 113, 124
Ezekiel, 38, 56, 85, 104 f., 114, 137*
1 66 f., 184; and the individual, 99
ff.; (Book of), 102, 117, 163, 190, 193,
J94
Ezra, 35
Faithfulness of God, 66 f., 73
Firstfruits, 94
Flood, 101, 103 n.
Future life, su Afterlife
Gabriel, 80
Gethsemane, 148
Gibeah, 25
Gibeon, Gibeonites, 26
Gideon, 78, 85, 89
Gilboa, 155
Glory, 1 73; of God, 6 1
God and revelation, 23 ff.; and sin,
90 ff.; (attributes of), 57 ff., 60 ff.;
(fellowship with), 39, 79, 81 ff., 87,
88, 90, 91, 115 > 130* *34> H7 >
160., 173; (beyond the grave), 171
ff.; (image of), 75 ff.; (names of),
51 ff.; (nature of), 48 ff.; (presence
of), 61, 82, in, 116, 145; (will of),
24, 28, 31, 34 ff- 83, 102, 124 ff.,
127, 154.
Golden Age, 72 n., in, 166, 176 ff.;
and universalism, 180 f.; religiously
based, 181 f.
Gomorrah, 126
Good Life, 124 ff.
Grace of God, 62, 67, 83, 90 n., 102
Greece, 59
Habakkuk, 112,138,189
Hadad, 77 n., 164
Hadad-rimmon, 163
Hades, 157
Haggai, 137
hammath, 33 n.
Hammurabi (Code of), 131 n.
Handel, 165
Hannah, 101; (Song of), 169 f.
harm^n, 62 n.
Harran, 183
Hebrews (Epistle to), 154
friker> 23 n.
fan, 62 n.
Hepatoscopy, 30
Hereafter, see Afterlife
IJerem-bethel, 133 n.
fresedh, 62 n., 66, 70, 130
Hezekiah, 44, 72, 77, 1 12 f., 124 n., 140,
147
History and revelation, 20 ff., 34, 40 ff.,
4&59
Holiness Code (H), 127, 184 n.
Holiness of God, 65 f., 73, 133; of man,
133 f.; of sabbath, 142
frdmath, 33 n.
Homer, 18 n., 156 n., 157, 158 n.
Hormah, ign.
Indexes
205
Hosea, 25, 33 f., 56, 62, 70, 78, 130;
(marriage of ) , 34 ; (Book of ) , 1 63, 1 6411.
Hydromancy, 30
Idols, j Images
Ikhnaton, 51
Iliad, 157
Images found in Israel, 77 f.; not in
Jerusalem or Shiloh, 77; (Prohibi-
tion of), 76, 125
Immanuel, 1 19 n.
Immortality, 154 f., 1 70 ff.
Individual and community, 99 if.
Injustice and sin, 104, 116
Inspiration, ai, 39, 59, 86
Isaac, 52, 117, 134
Isaiah, 24, 38, 44, 66, 72, 101, 112, 128
145; (call of), 24, 66, 101, 133 f.,
J35j 136. 145 (Apocalypse of), 166,
169; (Book of), 102, 117, 137, 179 n.,
182, i88, 192
Ishmael, 31
Ishum-bethel, 133 n.
Islam, 1 8 n., 71
Jabesh-gilead, 155
Jacob, 31, 52, 56, 134, 182, 186;
(Blessing of), 189
Jebusites, 77 n.
Jehoiachin, 120
Jehovah, 53; (other forms of name),
53 n -
Jeremiah, 28, 32 f., 35 f., 38 , 75, 82,
91, 92 f., 100, 108 f., U2, 130, 128,
130, 136 f., 148, 184, 192; and
individual, 99 ff,; and society, 104
ff.; (Book of), 102, 117, 132, 182,
1 90 ; (Confessions of) , 1 48
Jericho, 1 9 n.
Jeroboam, 33, 77, 108, 127
Jerusalem, 19 n., 35, 44, 77, 90 n., 126,
136, 140, 178, 182, 186, 191, 199;
(New), 152
Jesse, 188
Jesus Christ, 45 f., 84, 87 n., 139, 143,
148, 151 f., 175 187 f., 193* *96 n.
197,200
Jezebel, 101
Joash, i88n.
Job, 25, 116, 129, 158 f,, 170; (Book
of), 24, 51 n., 61, 80, 112, 114 ff.,
164 f.
Joel (Book of), 26, 86, 138, 178
John, 144
Jonah, 61, 147; (Book of), 123, 186
Jonathan, 28 f., 63
Joseph, 30, 31, 6x, 82, in, 116, 134
Joshua, 26, 58; (Book of), 19 n.
Joshua ben Hananiah (Rabbi), 90 n.
Josiah, 35, 140 f., 188 n. ; (reform of), 35
Judah the Prince (Rabbi), 88 n.
Judah, son of Jacob, 18 n.
Judgement, 73, 90 9 102; (Bay of),
153,167, 177 ff-
Judges (age of), 77; (Book of), 34 n.,
64, 90, 107
Justice, 60, 65, 03 n., 127 ff., 1 88 ff.,
197; (administration of), 37; of God,
60,641,90
Wk 32
karma) 151
Kemosh, 19 n.
Kenites, 54 f .
fe 32
Kings (Books of), 72 n., 126
Kishon, 26 f., 43
Lay source (L), 68 n.
Levirate marriage, 17, i8f.
Lot, 134
Lot (Sacred), 27 ff., 37
Love for God, 125, 135 f.; for man, 125;
of God, 62 ff., 90
Maccabaean age, 83, 168; revolt, 167
Magic and religion, 27 f.
Man, individuality and sociality, 99 ff.;
in image of God, 75 ff.; (nature of),
74 ff.; (need of), 86 ff.; seedso After-
life
Manasseh, grandson of Moses, 78 n.;
(King), 82 n., 140
Man, 37
Marriage, 131 f.; (Sacred), 163
mdshiali, 187 n.
Massacre of foes, 17, 19, 106
Massoretic text, 26 n., 28, 121, 150 n.,
191 n., 199
Mercy, 128 ff.; of God, 129; see also
Compassion
Merodach-baladan, 112
Mesha, 19 n.
Messiah, 187 ff.
Micah, 72, 82 n., 128, 130, 137, 179 n. ;
(Book of), 82, 117, 137, 182, 189, 192
Micah (Judges 17), 78
Micaiah, 80
Michael, 80, 156
Michmash, 63
Midianites, 54 n.
Midrash, 88 n.
Milkom, 51 n.
mintiah, 94
Miracle, 58 f.
mishpat, 65, 193 n.
Mission of Israel, 185 ff.
Mizpah, 27
Moabite stone, 19 n.
Moabites, 155
206
Indexes
Mohammed, 18 n,, 39
Mohammedanism, 36
Monogamy, 132
Monotheism, 15 n., 51 n., 71 ff., 185;
of Ikhnaton, 51
Moses, 16, 18, 19 n., 24, 32, 35 39. 4o
ff., 51 n., 52 &> 61, 66, 68, 71, 73, 76,
78, 86, 93, 101, 108, 120, 124 n., 126,
142, 153 n.; a prophet, 57; and
monotheism, 71 ff.; (call of), 101;
(Song of), 128, 169
Naboth, 34, 101, 122
Nahum, 138
Nathan, 60, 89, 91, 96 , 101
Nature, 23, 25 f, 34, 40 , 47, 58 f.,
Si, 163 f.
Nazareth, 193
Nazirites, 135
Nebo, 19 n.
Necromancy, 155 f.
Nehexniah, 147
nephesh, 74 n., 84 a., 155
Nergal, 159
New Year Festival, 162
Nicanor, 138 n.
Nineveh, 123
Nirvana, 151
Noah, 101, 103 n., 117
ndfctidh, 30 n.
Numbers (Book of) , 32
Oath, 56 n*
Obedience to God, 63 f., 70, 79, 81, 88,
91,109, 124 ff., 135, 181
Odysseus, 156 n.
Okeanos, 158 n.
Orion, 25
'frtth, 166 n.
Osiris, 161 f.
Palestine, 16, 140 f., 154, 162
Passover, 93 f.
Paul, 139
Peace, 73, 113 n., 181 f., 190 f., 201
Pentateuch, 35 f., 68 n., 74, 84, 87,
142 n., 155, 173
Persia, Persians, 35, 80, 161, 167, 187
Peter, 144
Pharaoh, 31, 41 f., 51, 61, 162
Pharisees, 87 n., 153, 160 n., 168
Philippians (Epistle to), 152
Philistines, 27, 155
Plato, 170
Pleiades, 25
Polygamy, 17 f., 132
Polytheism, 52
Prayer, 13 n., 101, 141, 144 f
Priestly Code (P), 31, 68 n., 74 n.
Priests, 37, 138; see also Ritual
Prophets and prophecy, 27 f., 30, 34,
37 ff., 42, 48 f., 57, 59, 63 , 69, 73,
88, 91, 95 fit., 101, 104, 108 n., 114,
126 ff., 143, 147, 179 f.; extension of
God's personality, 85 f.; and divina-
tion, 30; and ecstasy, 37 f.; and
individual, 101 ff.; and society, 102;
and sacrifice, 136 ff.; (cultic), 138 f.;
(false), 28, 32, 35, 39J (Egyptian),
37; at Man, 37; in Arabia, 33, 39;
of Baal, 38
Proselytes, i86f.
Prostitution (Sacred), 66, 131, 163
Proverbs (Book of), 87, 1 10, 125, 131
Psalter, 109 , 125, 135 , 143 ff., 150 ,
159, i74, 185, i88n.
Queen of Heaven, 77, 132
Qumran, 166 n., 199
Qur'an, 36, 124
Ras Shamra, 51 n., 52, 54, 133 n., 160 n.
Rebirth, 151
Red Sea, 58, 64
Rehoboam, 107
Remnant, 70 , 99 n., 103, 117 ff., 126
Repentance of God s 67
Resurrection, 152 , 161 ff.
Revelation, 16 n., 21 , 48, 59, 68, 71,
73, 83 , 154; in complex of per-
sonality and event, 21, 40 ff.; key-
note of Bible, 24; (Media of), 23 ff.
Righteousness, 60, 65, 127 ff., 188 ff,,
1 93; of God, 60, 65, 73, 128
Ritual, 86 ff., 91 ff., 124, 138 ; and
the prophets, 136 ff.
Rome, 59
rtiah> 84 n., 85
Ruth, 19 n,, 186; (Book of), 19 n.
Sabbath, 125, 141
Sacrifice, 46 , 86 ff., 91 ff., 102 , 142;
and obedience, 125; and prophets,
136 ff.; and submission, 36, 96 ;
and the Gross, 139
Sadducees, 153, 1 68
Salvation, 20, 55, 59 , 62 , 73, 91,
109; from sin, 87 ff., 90 ff.; (re-
sponse to), 59
Samaria, 133 n.
sarhsara, 151
Samuel, 27, 33, 101, 108, 156; (call
of), 101
Sarah, 31
Satan, 67, 80, 115
Saul, 25, 28 , 33, 38, 155
Scapegoat, 9 5
Second Advent, 200
Indexes
207
65 n.
190 n.
Sennacherib, 44, 58
Septuagint (LXX), 23 n., 27 n., 28 ,
33 53 79 n-t 221, 150 n. 160 au,
iSon., 18511.9 i86n., 191 n.
Servant Songs, 1 19, 186
Servant (Suffering), see Suffering
Servant
Sexual purity, 130 f.
Shaddai, 51 f.
shakSdh, 32
ShangTi, 5 2,54
Sheol, 157 ff. 168, 170, 171 ff., 174
shil&h, igon.
Shiloh,77, 189 f.
M&dh, 32
Simeon, 143
Sin, 20, 86 ff., 100 f., 114, 145; a
injustice, 104; of Achan, 106 f.; of
100 f., 114, 145; and
representative of community, 107 ;
(salvation from), 87 ff., 90 ff.
Sinai, 16,35, 59 f., 68, 77
Ben Sira, 89 n.
Sisera, 26, 43, 58
Sociality of man, 99 f., 1 1 2 f.
Socrates, 170
Sodom, 103, 1 1 8, 126, 128, 134
Solomon, 31, 72, no, 124 n., 126
Son of Man, 194^, iggf.
Song of Songs, 132
Soul, 74 f.
Spirit, 84 ff.
Suffering (Problem of ), 1 14 ff.
Suffering Servant, 46, 97 f., 118 ff,
139, 186, 197 , 199, 201
Symbolism (Prophetic), 28
Synagogue, 139 ff., 144
Syncretism, 52, 77 f.
Syria, Syrians, 27, 162, 185 n.
Syriac Version (Peshitta), 150 n.
Taanach, 58 n.
Tables of Stone, 35
Talmud, 88 n.
Tamar, ign.
tamtm, 28 n.
TammuZj 161 ff.
Targum, 130, ison.
Teacher of Righteousness, 200
Temple (Jerusalem), 24, 28, 31 n., 35,
38, 46 , 77, 97, ioi 126, 136 ff.,
142, 144, 148
Teraphim, 78
Tetragrammatoii, 53 n.
Thaiikofferings, 94
Theology of History, 20; of O.T., 13,
15, 17, 19 f.^ 21, 62; relation to
history of Religion, 17 ff.
Thummim 3 28 , 31
Tithes, 94
ttrah, 37
Trito-Isaiah, i86, 192
Truth, 11311.
tumrram, 28 n.
Unity of Bible, 14, 22, 45 ff.; of O.T. t 14
Universalism, 72, 180 ff.
Uriah, 34, 88 , 101, 112, 114
Urim, 28 , 31
Uzziah, 1 20
Vows, 94
Vulgate, 23 n., 26 n., 49 n., 53, 79 n.,
150 n., 160 n., 180 n., 185 n.
Wen-amon, 37
Wisdom, no; of God, 61
Wisdom Literature, 87, 1 35
Worship, 138 ff.
Wrath of God, 65, 90
Yahu, 133 n.
Yahweh, name unused by Israelites
in Egypt, 41 ; identified with God of
fathers, 52; pronunciation, 53; ?
known at Ras Shamra, 54; ? used by
Kenites,54f.
Yahwist (J), 68 n., 69 n., 71 n., 142 n.,
183 n.
Yw son of El, 54
Zechariah, 137, 184, i86
Zedekiah, son of Ghenaanah, 27, 38
Zephaniah, 178, 184
Zerubbabel, 120
Zeus, 83
Zion, 137, 178, 184 n., 185, 191, 193
Zophar, 23
Zoroaster, 39
Zoroastrianism, 80, 161, 168
208
Indexes
(I) AUTHORS
Albright, W. F. 15 XL, 19 n., 51 XL, 54
nu, 71 n., 77 n., 80 IL, 133 n., 140 n.,
161 n., 1 62 XL
Alt,A.,i88n.
Andre*, T., 169 nu
Asensio, F., 13 nu, 66 n., 70 n., 1 13 n.
August!, J. G. W., 1 20 n
Baab, O. J*, 17 n., 48 n., 119 n., 175 n.
Bacfaer, W., 140 n.
Bacon, Francis, i xo n.
Baentsch, B., 68 n., 69 n* 72 nu
Baethgen ? F.,49ii.
Ball, C.J., 165 n.
Batta,E., I3&XL
Barnes, W. E., 49 n., 175
Barth, Gh., 17511.
von Batsdissin, W. W., 51 n., 162 n.,
16411.
Bauer, H,, 54 n.
Baumgartel, F., 14 nu
Baumgartner, A.-J., 18 n.
Baumgartner, W., 54 n.
Bea, A., 54 n.
Beer, G., 62 n., 68 n., 69 n. 76 n., 1 72 n.
Begrich, J., 68 n., 120 n., 197 n.
Bclaiev, E, A., 12411.
Bennett, W. H., 62 n,, 183 n.
Benfczen, A., ison., 162 n.
Bernini, G., 13 n., 145 n.
Berry, G. R., 49 n*, 50 n., 72 n., 173 n.,
17511.
Bertholet 3 A., 155 n., 161 n., 16411.
Bcwcr,J, A., 12 in.
Bi,M.,30n.
Bienernann, G. A., 57 n.
Billerbeck, P., 141 n., 153 n.
Binns, L. E., 36 n., 137 n., 184 n.
Birkelandj H., 128 n.., 157 n., 163 n.,
16411., 16711.
Black, J.S., 29 n.
Blacknian, A. M., 37 n,
Blank, S. H., 120 n., 175 n.
de Boer, P. A. H., 1 19 n.
dc Lkgre Bohl, F. M. Th., 37 n., 49 n.,
I2pn.
Boissier, A., 29 n.
Boklen, E., 80 n.
Bollier, J. A., 65 n.
Bonkarnp, B., 49 n.
Bonnetairx, P., 62 n., 66 n., 70 n.
Bonsirven, J., 50 n.
Bousset, W., 140 n.
Boutflowcr, C., I94n.
Box, G. H., 137 n., 140 n., 166 n.,
i88n.
Brandon, S. G F., 162 n.
Brekdmans, C. H. W., 54 n.
Briggs, C. A., 49 n., 74 n., 85 n., 171 n.,
173 n., 174 n.
Bright, J., 30 n., 62 n., 77 n.
Brockington, L. H. 28 n.
Bruce, F. F., 141 n.
Buber, M., 54 n., 74 n., 120 n.
Buck, F., 62 n.
Budde, K,, 26 n., 54 n., 142 n., 169 n.
Burney, G. F., 26 n. s 159 n., 171
Burrows, E., 120 n.
Burrows, M., 15 n., 18 n., 48 n., 155 n.
Burton, E. D., 74 n., 85 n*
Buttcnwicser, M., I74n.
Buzy,D.,28n.
Byington, S. T., 130 n.
s, J., 49 n., 174 n.
Carpenter, J. E.> 62 n., 68 n., 69 n.
Case, S.J., 196 n.
Cassel, P., 27 n.
Gassuto, IL, 133 n.
Causse, A., 71 n., 99 n., 105 n,, 121 n.,
isSnu, 1380., 139 n.
Gazelles, H., 6511.
Geuppens, F., 79 n., 84 n.
Charles, R. H., 151 n., 152 n., 153 n.,
156 n., 160 n., 171 n., 177 n.
Gheyne, T. K.., 173 n., 175 n.
Glamer, A., 49 n., 121 n., 163 n., 173 n.
Clemen, G., 162 n.
Coates,J.R.,65n.,87n.
Coates,W.J., 126 n.
Gondamin, A., 33 n.
Contenau, G., 29 n., 30 n.
Cook, S. A., 131 n.
Gooke, G. A., ign.
Goppens,J., I4n., i2on.
CornUl, C., 137 n., 188 n.
Cowley, A., 133 n.
Cramer, K., 33 n., 65 n., 117 n., 177 n.
Griado, R., 20 n.
Gripps, R. S., I77n.
Crook, Margaret, 188 n.
Cullmann, O., 200 n.
Dallas, A. K., I39n.
Danby, H., 87 n.
Danell, G. A., 117 n.
Davidson, A. B., x 19 n., 159 n., 165 n.,
177 n.
Davidson, S., 1 19 n.
Deden, D., 82 n.
Indexes
209
Bditzsclij F., 121 n,, 173 XL
De!porte,L., ign.
Dennefeld, L., 12 1 n., 137 n., 163 n.,
1 66 n., 188 n., 190 n., 199
Dentan, R. C., i8n.
Descamps, A., 65 n.
Dhonne, P. (E.), 23 n., 27 n., 29 n.,
30 n., 51 n., 93 n., 157 n., 160 n.,
16511.
Dietze, K., I2on.
Dillmann, A., 76 n,
Dittmann, H., 103 n.
Dodd,C.H.,69n.
Don*, H., 29 n.
van Dorssen, J. C. C., 66 n.
Driver, G. R, 131 n., 159 n.
Driver, S. R., 18 n., 19 n., 23 n., 62 n.,
68 n., 69 n., 79 n., 169 n., 175 n.,
17711., 18311., 190 n,
Duhm, B., 36 n., 49 n., 120 n., 137 n.,
184 n., i88n.
Dupont-Sommer, A., 133 n., 200 n.
Dussaud, R. s 54 n., 84 n., 92 n., 160 n.
Eaton, D., I73n.
EbelingjE., 1590.
Eberharter, W., 76 n.
Edelkoort, A. H., 137 n., 188 n., 190 n.
Eerdmans, B. D., 75 n., 142 n., 175 n.
Ehnmark, E., I7on.
Ehrlich, A. B., 27 n., 49 n.
Ehrlich,E.L.,32n.
Eichrodt, W., 16 n., 48 n., 68 n., 74 n.,
77 n., loin.
Eissfeldt, O., 30 n., 51 n., 53 n., 54 n.,
62 n., 68 n., 69 n., 94 n., 117 n.,
i38n., iSsn, 185 n.
Elliger,K., i84n.
Engnell, L, 30 n., 65 n., 138 n., 139 n.,
l62B.
Epstein, L, M. s I32n.
Erman, A., 37 n.
Ewald, H., 27 n., 1 19 n.
Fahlgren, K. H., 65 n.
Farley, F. A., 120 n.
Fernandez, A., 19 n.
Feuillet, A., 19511.
Fielden,F.J., I57n.
Filson, F. V., 145 n.
Findlay, G. G., 151 n.
Finkelstein, L., 53 n.
Fischer, J., I37n., i88n.
van der Flier, A., 166 n.
Fohrer, G., 28 n., 131 n.
Follet, R., 32 n.
Fosdick, H. E., i6n.
Fowler, H.N., i7on
de Fraine, J., 99 n., 100 n.
Frankfort, H., 162 n.
FreyJ.-B., 161 n.
Frost, S.B. 9 j66n.,i88n.
von Gall, A., 1900.
Galling, K., 56 n., 67 n.
Garofalo, S., 103 n., 1 17 n.
Gartner, B., 50 n.
Gaster, T. H., 93 n., 162 n,, 163 n.
Gelin, A., i28n. > 131 n., 17811.
George, A., 82 n.
Gerleman, G., 139 n.
Giesebrecht, F,, 36 n., 137 n. } 184 n.
Ginsberg, H. L., x88 n.
Glahn,L., iB6n.
Glasson,T.F.,20on.
Glueck, N., 70 n.
Godman, S., 200 n.
Gordon, C. H., 54 n,
Gore, G., 99 n.
GottwaSd, N. K.., 103 n., 179 n.
Graetz, H., 172 n.
Gray, G. B., 23 n., 77 n., 92 n., 93 n.,
94 n,, 95 n. } 163 n., 166 n., 188 n.
Gray J., 54 n., 1 60 n.
Gray,L.H., i8n.
Gressmann, H., 76 n., 103 n., 117 n.,
140 n., 161 n., 177 n., 179 n.
Grether, O., 27 n.
Guillaume, A., 29 n., 33
Gulkowitsch, L,, 130 n.
Gunkel, H., 38 n., 49 n., 74 n., 99 n.,
101 n., 139 n., 145 n., 169 n., 172 n.,
175 n.
Guthe,H.,
Haag, H., 93 n.
Hahn,H.F.,52n.
Haldar, A., 29 n., 30 n., 138 n.
HaldvyJ., 178 n.
Harley,A.H., i8n.
Harms, K., 39 n.
Harrison, J. E., 158
Haupt, P., 30 n., 138 n.
Havet, E., 141 n.
Heaton, E. W., 103 n.
Hebert,A.G.,56n.
Heidt, W. G., 48 n., 75 n., 361 n.
Heinisch, P., 48 n., 161 n.
Helfgott, B.W., 90 n.
Hempel, J., 50 n., 78 n., 99 n., 100 n.,
n8n.
Hiring, J., 151 n.
Herkenne,H., 17211.
Herntrich, V., 103 n.
Herrmann, J., I26n.
Hertzberg, H. W., 13 n., 65 n.
Hess, W., 79 n.
Hesse, F., 108 n., 138 n.
Hillis,W.B., 156 n.
210
Indexes
HoSme% R., 1 21 n.
Holscher, G., 41 n., 76 n,, 138 n,, 140 n.
Hoizinger s H., 74 n n 84 n.
Homer, 155 XL, 158 n.
Hooke, S. H.j 62 n., 76 XL, 86 n., 93 &.,
99 n., 162 n.. 164 n.
van Hoonacker, A., 26 n., 33 a., 120 n.,
I37H., 184 1L
Horst, F., 79 n., 141 n.
Horst, L., 140 n.
Humbert, P., 66 n., 75 n,, 121 n., 131
n., *s8n.
Hvldberg, F. F v 163 n.
Hyatt, J. P., 9311.
van Imschoot, P., 13 n., 38 n. 48 n,,
68 n.
Irwin, W. A., 15 n., 131 n.
ack,J.W., 16311.
acob, B., ia6n.
aeob, E., 13 n., 56 n.
acobi, W., 38 n.
'ames, F M 71 n.
astrow, M., 29 n., 158 f.
epsen, A., 138 n.
anemias, A., 75 n.
eremias,J., 119 n.
erome, 79 n.
johansson, N., 108 n.
Johnson, A. R., 29 n., 62 n., 70 n.,
74 n., 75 n., 76 n., 78 n., 85 n., 138
IL, 143 n., 170, 192 n.
Josephus, 167 n.
Jo1tan,P.,66n.
Junker, H., 33 n., 181 n.
iCmpdrud, A. S., 138 n., 139 n. 178 n.,
179 n.
Karge,P.,68n.
Kautzsch, E. , 76 n.
Kennedy, A. R. S., 18 n., 29 n., 31 n.,
169
Kennett, R. H., 141 n.
Kennicott, B., 121 n.
I5am]& 65 n.
King,L.W.,29n.
Kirkpatrick, A. F., 49 n., 170, 175 n.
Kissane, E. J., 137 n., 150 n., 163 n.,
i66n., i88n.
Kittel,G., i96n.
Kittel, R., 76 n., 121 n., 140 n., 173 n.,
Klausner, J,, 87 n.
Koehler, L., 24 n., 48 n., 68 n., 75 n.,
12! n., i86n.
Kdnig, E,, 26 n., 54 n., 119 n., 190 n.
Kraeling, E. G., 133 n., 194 n,
Kraetzschmar, R., 68 n.
Kramer, S. N., 164 n.
. s 86 n.
Kurtz, J. H., 95 ~
Lagrange, M.-J., 152 n., 15911.
Lambert, G., 8 in.
Lanctiotor, H. G* Q., 177 n.
Landersdorfer, S., 95 n.
LangeJ.P.,27n.
Langlic, R. de., 54 n.
Langton, E., 80 n.
Lardier, C-, 165 n.
Lattey, C. 49 n., 172 n., 173 n.
Leclerqj., 14811.
de Leeuw, V., 124 n.
van Leeuwen, G. s 128 n.
Leivestad, R,, 65 n.
Lenormant, F., 29 n.
Leslie, E. A., 49 n., 148 n., 184 n.
Levy, R., 185 n., 197 n.
Lichtenstein, M., 74 n.
Lindblom, J., 50 n., 73 n., 1 19 n., 165 n.,
i66n., 190 n.
Lindhagen, G., 124 n.
Lippl,J., i37n.
Lods, A., 27 n., 28 n., 37 n., 51 n.,
62 n., 76 n., 99 n., 101 n., 119 n.,
16911.
Lofthouse, W. F., 28 n., 62 n., 65 n.,
70 n.
Logan, N. A., 153 n.
Lohzacyer, E., 68 n., 69 n.
Lohr, M,, 99 n.
Loisy, A., 141 n.
Lucian, 162
Luckenbill, D. D., 53 n., 131 n.
Maag, V., 33 n., i78n.
Manley,G.T., 58 n.
Manson, T. W., 194 n., 196
Margolioutii, D. S., 15411.
Marmorstein, A., 12011., 161 n.
Marti, K., 57 n., 117 n., 188 n., 197 n.
Martin, J., 95 n.
Martin, Raymond, 53 n.
Matthes, J. C., 142 n.
Matthews, I. G., 71 n., 100 n., 114 n.,
iign., 136 n., i66n.
May, A. H., 86 n.
May, H. G., 131 n., 163 n., 164 n.
McKenzie, J. L., 27 n., 81 n.
McNeile, A. H., 62 n., 68 n., 69 n.,
76 n.
Medebielle, A., 91 n., 105 n.
Meck,TJ.,54n.
Meinhold, J,, 76 n.
Menes, A., 140 n.
Menzies, A., 29 n.
Mercer, A. B., 51 n.
Mercier, G., 49 n.
Messel, N., 196 n.
Indexes
211
Metzger, B. M., 164 n.
Meyer, E., 41 n., 80 nu
Miles,}. G., 131 n.
Mffis,L.H.,8on.
Mitchell, H. G., 187
Moflfatt, J., 74 n., 88 n., 151 n., 152 n.
MonteithjJ. s laon.
Montefiore, G. G., 56 n., 183 n.
Montgomery, J. A., 53 n., 70 n.
Montgomery, W., 77 n.
Moore, G. F., 29 n., 92 n., 94 n., 140 n.,
169 n.
Morgenstem, J., 33 n., 54 n., 185 n,
Moulton, J. H., 156 n.
Mowinckel, S., 103 n., 117 n., 120 n.,
121 n., 138 n., 139 n., 142 n., 162 n.,
177 n., 178 n.
Mulder, E.S., i66n.
Miiller, W. K, 103 n.
Munch, P. A., I79n.
Murphy, R. T. A., 140 n.
Murtonen, A., 30 n., 53 n., 54 n.
Nakarai, T. W., 65 n.
Neher, A. H., 37 n., 62 n., 65 n., 85 n.,
177 n -
Neufeld,E., i32n.
Nikolabaen, A. T., 161 n., 163 n.,
175 n.
Nilsson, M. P., I57n.
Notscher, F., 36 n., 65 n., 137 n., 161
n., 164 n., 184 n., 190 n.
North, C. R., 13 n., 56 n., 68 n., 75 n.,
119 n., 120 n., 121 n., 183
Noth, M., 37 n., 41 n., 159 n.
Nyberg, H. S., 51 n., 161 n.
Obbink, H. T,, 77 n.
Qbermann, J., 18 n., 53 n.
Oehler, G. F., 13 n., 75 n., 84 n.
Oesterley, W. O. E., 29 n., 49 n., 62 n.,
68 n., 69 n., 80 n., 92 n., 95 n., 99 n.,
140 n., 157 n., 173 n., 177 n., 183 n.,
i88n.
Ostborn, G., 37 n., 197 n.
Osty,E., i64n.
Pannier, E., 49 n., 173 n.
Parsons, J., 12 1 n.
Paterson, W. P., 18 n., 92 n., 132 n.
Paton, L. B., 141 n.
Patterson, G. H., 99 n.
Patton,W.R., i8n.
Pavry, J. D. C., 161 n.
Payne, E. A., 28 n.
Peake, A. S., 23 n., 36 n., 105 n.,
118 n., 119 n., 137 n., 165 n.
Pedersen, J., 18 n,, 36 n., 65 n., 68 n.,
93 n., 94 n,, 100 n., 108 n., no n.,
131 n., 158 n.
Penta, G. della, 140 n.
P6rennes 9 H., 49 n.
Perry, E., 66 a.
Peters, J. P., 239 n.
Petrus Galatbaus, 53 n.
Pfeifler, R. H., 71 n., 76 n., 117 n.,
x66n., 169 n.
Phillips, G, E., 1311*
Phythian-Adains, W. J., 54 n.
Pickering, B. M., 99 n.
Pidoux, G., 13 n., 74 n.
Piper, O., 14511.
Pirot, L., 49 n., 121 n., 163 n., 173 n.
Plato, 170
van der Ploeg, J., 65 n., 121 n., 128 n.
Plutarch, 16411.
Podechard, K, 49 n., 171 n., 173 n.
Porteous, N. W., 13 n., 138 n.
Prat, F., 53 n.
PrStorius,F. 121 n.
Press, R., 29 n.
Procksch, O., 48 n., 65 n., 68 n., 69 n.,
74 n., i88n., 190 n.
Quell, G., 39 n., 65 n., 66 n., 68 n.,
87 n., I75n., 185 n.
von Rad, G., 39 n., 61 EU
Rahlfs,A.i5on.
Rankin, O. S., 100 n.
Rapp, L,, 12811.
Rashi, 65 n.
Reed,W.L.,62n.
Regnier, A., 28 n.
Renard, H., 49 n., 1 73 n.
Ricciotti, G., 140 n.
Richardson, A., 58 n,
Rjdderbos,N.H.,37n.
Ringgren, H., 65 n., 1 72 n.
Robert, A., 71 n., 131 n., 138 n.
Robinson, H. Wheeler, 21 n., 24 n.,
28, 37 n., 74 n., 82 n., 1 18 n., 121 n.,
i55n., i6gn.
Robinson, T. H., 29 n., 62 n., 68 n.,
69 n., 82 n., 99 n., 117 n., 131 n.,
140 n., 157 n., 164 n., 173 n., 177 n.,
183 n., i88n.
Rohde, E., 156 n., 157 n.
Ropes, J. H., 65 n.
Rosenthal, E. I. J., 37 n.
Rosenzweig, F., 74 n.
Rothstein, J. W., 120 n.
Roubos,K., i38n.
Rudolph, W., 36 n., 74 n., 137 n.,
i66n.
Ryle, H. E., 183 n., 190 n.
Saadia Gaon, 120 n.
Sainte-Marie, H. de, 79 n., 150 n.,
i6on.
212
Indies
Schauer, A., 139 n.
Scheftdowitz, J.j 80 a.
Schilling, O., 173 n.
Schmidt, H., 49 a., 131 n., 137 a.,
140 a., 162 a., i88n.
Schmokel, H., 37 a.
Schoemaker, W. R., 85 n.
Schofield, J. N., 76 BU, 153 n.
Schiirer, E., 140 n.
Schwab, R., 49 n.
Schwaliy, F., 1 74 n, , 1 84 a.
Scott, R. B. Y., 69 n.
Sellers, O. R., 23 n., 131 n., 163 n.
SeUin, E-, 27 n., 77 n., 79 n., 117 n.,
120 a., 137 a., 164 a., 269 a., 184 n.,
188 E.
Siebens, A.-R., 140 a.
Simon, J., 26 a.
Simon, U., 197 n.
Simpson, G. A., 62 n., 69 n,
Simeon, D. G., 86 a,, 1 18 a.
SjobergE., xg6n.
Skemp, A. .,119 n*
Skinner, J., 36 a., 74 n,, 105 n., 117 a.,
119 a., 137 a., 148 a., 183 a., 184 a.,
190 a.
Slater, J.R., 99 n.
Smalley, B., 53 a.
Smcnd, R*, 36 a*
Smith, G. Ryder, 13 n., 74 a., 75 a.,
85 a., 87 n.
Smith, George Adam, 36 a., 44 a.,
62 a., 137 a., 144 a., 169 a., 184 a.
Smith, H. P., 29 a., 76 a.
Smith, J. F., 1 19 a.
Smith, J. M. Powis, 117 n., 131 a.,
1 35 a., 1 77 a., 178 a.
Smith, K. Gregor, 74 a.
Smith, R. Gregor, 74 a.
Smith, W. Robertsoa, 18 n.
Snaith, N. H., 62 a., 65 a., 70 a., 93 a.,
155 a., 162 a., 165, 173 a., 197 a.
Snijders, L. A., 131 a.
von Soden, W., 37 n.
Spadafora, F., 99 a., 105 a.
SpeerJ., 165 n,
Speiser, E. A., 162 n.
Stade, B., 36 a., 54 n., 140 a.
Staerk, W., 120 n., 179 a.
StammJ.J., 143 a.
Stave, E., 80 a.
Steenstra, P. H., 27 a.
Stein, B., 61 a.
Steinmann, J., 137 n., 138 n., 166 n.,
i88n.
Steuernagel, C., 62 n., 68 a., 69 a., 76
n., 140 a., 169 n.
Stier, F., 23 n,
Stoebe,H.J.,7on.
Strack, H. L., 141 a., 153 a.
Strathmann, H., 152 n.
Streane, A. W., 36 a., 137 a.
Strong, J,, 1943.
Sutcliffe, E. F., 74 a., 116 n., 153 a.,
165 a., 166 n., 167 a., 171 a., 172,
1740.
Swete,H.B,, 121 a.
TheisJ., 1 37 a.
Thik, G., 20 n.
Thomas, D. Wiaton, 159 a.
Thomson, J. K. A., 157 n.
Torrey, G. G., 140 a.
Tournay, R., 49 n.
Trabaud, H., 68 a., 69 n.
Tricot, A., 71 a., 131 a.
Ubach, B., 27 a.
Valeton,R.,68n.
de Vaux, R., 54 n., 71 a., 103 a., 1 17 n.
Vernes, M., !40n.
Vincent, A., 27 a., 54 a.
Virolleaud, Gh., 54 a., 160 n.
Vischer, W., 54 n.
Volz, P., 36 n., 41 n., 57 n., 76 n.,
i2oa., 137 a., 184 n.
Vriezen, Th. C., 13 a., 48 a., 67 a., 75 n.
Wade, G. W., 113 n., 117 n., 163 n.,
i66a., 1 88 a.
van der Weijdea, A. H., 65 a.
Weiser, A., 62 a., 69 a,, 76 a., 82 a.,
100 a., 117 a., 137 a., 164 a., 178 n.
Welch, A. G., 139 n., 143 a., 144 a.
Wellhausea, J., 26 n., 29 n., 140 n.,
196 a.
Wells, L. S. A., 156 n.
Wendland, H. D., 151 n.
Wensinck, A. J., 54 n.
Wessel,J.,53n.
Westphal, G., 18 n.
White, L. A., 51 a.
Whitehouse, O. G., 119 a., 188 a.
Widengren, G., 162 n.
Williams, A. L., 53 n.
Wilson, J. A., 37 a., 162 a.
Winckler, H., 41 n.
Witton-Davies, C., 120 n.
Witton-Davies, T., 30 n.
Woods, J., 13 n.
Wright, G. E., 15 n., 16 n., 69 n.,
71 n., 79 n., 84 a., 99 n,
Wiirthwein, E., 138 n.
Zeitlin, S., 141 n.
Zeigler, J., 121 n.
Zimmerli, W., 14 n., 119 n.
Zockler, O., 194 n.
Zorell, F., 49 n., 173 n.
Indexes
213
Gmesis
.1
.20, 24
.26 f.
.27
.28
.30
2
2.7
2.16 f.
2.16 ff.
2.19
2.2 X
3*8
3.8 f.
3.11
3-19
3.22
4 1
4.6
4.8
4.9
4.9 f.
4.10
6.5
7.22
9.12, 15, 16
1 1-5
11.7
I2.I
12-3
12.7
13.8 ..
13.10 ff. ..
14-5
14.22
I5.2O
16.7 ff. . .
16.13
I7.I
17.1 ff. . .
18.1
i8.iff. .,
i8.i6ff. ..
18.18 . .
18.20 ff- ..
18.25
18.32 . .
19.1 ff. ..
20. i ff. . .
20.3
2I.I2f. ..
21.13
()
TEXTS
22.1 iff. ..
Son.
78
22.18
18311.
Son.
26.4
183 n.
74 n.
26.11
75 ^
84
26.35
84 n.
28.10 ff. ..
31 n.
78n.,8i n., 131 n.
28.14
183 n.
74 n.
29.30 f. . .
132 n.
74 n.
31.1
132 n.
74 n.j 75 n.
31.12
75
24 n.
32.1
Son.
Sin.
32.30
75 ^
74 n.
75 n.
60 n., 75 n., 89 n.
34-30
38
38.5 ff. ..
i8n.
19 n.
31 n.
24 n.
39-2
134 n.
60 n.
82 n., n6n., 134x1.,
150 n.
14711.
i5on., I55n.
40.5 ff. . .
31 n.
94 n.
41. iff. ..
31 n.
34 n.
44.2,5
30 n.
104 n., H2n.
45.1 ff. ..
134x1.
i23n.
49
189
61 n.
49.10
189 n.
89 n.
101 n., I73n.
Exodus
101 n.
2.12
126 iu
8911.
2.13
126 n.
74 n.
3.1
54 n.
74 n.
60 n.
3.1 ff. . .
3.2
75 n., Son.
75 n.
3. 4 ff. ..
75 n., 101 n.
183 n.
3-5
145 n.
183 n.
3.7 ..
56 n., 12611.
24 n., 75 n.
3.7 ff. ..
41 n.
134 n.
4.16
39 n.
134**
1 6on.
6.2
6.3
41 n.
5611,
6.9 .- -
84 n.
i6on.
7.1
39 n.
75 n., Son.
14.21
40 n., 58 n.
75 n*
14.22 ,.
58 n.
75
24 n.
14.26 f. ..
16.29 f. *
40 n.
142 n.
75 n.
18.1
54 n.
24 n.
i8.ii
50 n.
103 n., n8n.
iSsn.
134 n.
7in., 128 n.
18.16 ..
19-3
19.6
20
37 n.
69 n., 8 1 n., 12411.
135 n.
76, 125 ,142
is6n.
20.3
50 n.
Son.
20.4
76 n.
134*-
31 n.
20.5 ..
2I.I2ff. ..
113 n.
i8n.
31 n.
21.14
i8n.
31 n.
22.20 (Heb. 19)
19 n t
214
22.26 (Heb. 25)
1280.
23.6
127 n.
23.12
24.9 ff-
142 n.
68 n.
28.30
31 n.
29,10,15,19
96 n.
29,38 ff. ..
95 n.
31.18
35
33.20
24 n.
34
76, 125, 141
34,1,4 ..
34^
34.6 .. ..
ii3n.
34.14
1250.
34.146:
125 n.
34.17
76 n,, 125 n.
34-21 ..
i25n., 142 n.
34.23 . .
142 n.
Leviticus
1.4
96 n.
2 . .
94 n.
3.2, 8, 13
96 n.
4.3
187 n.
4.4,15,24,29,33
96 n.
f\A
!^ -
6.8 ff. (Heb. iff.)
6.15
94
87 n., 95 n.
95 n.
187 n.
7,11 ff. ..
92 n., 95 n.
8.14,18,22
96 n.
16
95 n.
16.21
19^5
127 n.
19.18
125 n.
19.26
30 n., is6n.
19.29
131 n.
19.35 ..
I27n.
Numbers
5.6
87 n., 95 n.
11.29
86 n.
12.6
32 n.
12.6 ff. ..
57 ^
21.2
19 n.
21.4
84 n.
21. 8 ..
77 n.
22.22 ff, . .
Son.
28.3 ff. . .
95 -
35.9ff. ..
i8n.
35.25, 28
i8n.
Deuteronomy
2.11,20
i6on.
2.34
19 n.
3.6
3.11
ion.
i6on.
4-19
25 n.
4.30
i79n.
5
1420.
5.9
II 3 n *
Indexes
6.5
6.6
7.24 ft ..
12.23 . .
13.15 (Heb. 1 6)
15.8
16.11,14
16.19
17.3 IF. ..
18.10
18.15
19.1 ff. ..
19.6, 12
20.17
23.4 (Heb. 5) -
23.17 f. (Heb. r 8
24.16
24.19, 20
25.5?. -
25-
26.
. 81 n., 13511.
. 125 n.
. 19 n.
. 74 n.
1911.
. 12911.
. 129 n.
. 127 n.
. 25 n.
. 3011., 15611.
. 57 n.
. i8n.
. i8n.
. 19 n.
. 132 n.
. 27 n.
f.) 131 n.
. 106
. 129 n.
. x8n.
. 12711.
. 14411.
. 129 n.
. 109
. 34 n.
. 6411.
, 26 n.
128 n.
17011.
57 n.
D.I-II
26.13
28.1 ff. ..
28.7 ff. ..
28.15 ff. ..
28.23 . .
32.3
32*39 -
34*10 . .
Joshua
6.17 .. . . 19 n.
7.1 .. .. 63 n.
7.1 ff. . . , . loo n.
8.18 . . . . 30 n.
8.26 . . . . 19 n.
io.io .. . . 26 n.
io.ii .. ..ion.
10.13 .. . , 58 n.
10.20 . . . . 19 n.
10.28, 35, 37, 39
20.6 .. .. i8n.
Judges
2.3 .. .. 19 n.
3*5 - - 19 n.
3-19
4.11 ..
5.201. . . . . 27 n.
5.21 f. . . . . 58 n.
6.ii .. . . 75 n .
6.iiff, .. .. 80 n.
6.i4ff. .. . . 75 n .
6,25 ff. . . . . 52 n.
6.27 . . . . 78 n.
6.28 ff. .. .. 78 n.
6,34 .. .. 85 n.
8.27 .. .. 77 n.,
Indexes
215
io. x6
..8411.
i Kings
13.3 ff. . .
..Son.
1.50
.. x8n.
A ** -
i6.x6
.. 8411.
2.28 ff. . .
. . iB n.
17-3
.. 78 n.
3-4 ff*
.. 32n.
17-3 f -
.. 77 n.
3-13
. . non.
18.14 ff.
.. 78 n.
8.60
. . 72 n.
18.30 . .
.. 7811.
xi.26ff. ..
.. 127 n.
11.40
. . 127 n.
Rttk
I2.lff. ..
. . 107 n.
1.16
.. 186 n.
1 2.2
.. 127
I4.I ff. ..
.. 3311.
Samuel
.6
.10
.. 132 n.
.. 840.
18.28 . .
I9.I8 ..
21.5 f. ..
21.8 ff. ..
.. 3811.
.. 1030., 117 n.
.. i8n.
.ioff. . .
. . 101 n.
21. IO
.. 60 n.
.11
2.6 f.
3-4 ff. -.
.. I44n.
.. 169 n.
. . 101 n.
2X.X7ff. ..
21.29
22.11
. . 101 n*
.. 9711., ii2n.
.. 27 n., 3811
4.8
. . 50 n.
7.10 ..
9.6
. . 27 n.
. . 33 n.
u Kings
1.3
.. 80 n.
10.6
1 1. iff. ..
. . 85 n.
.. 155 n.
3.4
.. 30 n.
.. i66n.
14.27
14.36 ff...
14.37 . .
14-37 ff
14.41
. . 63 n.
. . 28 n.
. . 63 n.
.. 28
xx.4ff. ..
12.4 ff. ..
17.16
.. 5811.
.. 142 n.
.. 94n.
.. son.
14.42 . .
. , 29 n.
17.17 ..
.. 30 n., 15611.
15.22
15.23
. . 1 9 n.
. . 96 n., 125 n.
. . 30 n., 156 n.
17.30 ..
18.4 . .
18.4 ff. ..
.. 133 ^
.. 77*-
.. 140 n.
IO.IO
iS.iof. ..
. . 38 n.
8e n
19.15,20
19-35 -
.. 72 n.
.. 58 n.
19*9
5
20.3
.. 1470.
19.24 .-
20.18 ff. ..
. . 38 n.
.. son.
20.19
21.3
.. 11311.
.. 25 n.
21. iff. ..
. . 25 n.
21.6
.. 30 n., 156 n.
22.2
.. 84n.
21.7
22 f.
.. 77 n.
.. 140 n.
24.7,11
. . 187 n.
22.g ff. . .
Q4 n.
26.9
. . 187 n.
22.8
. . 35 n.
28.3
28.3 ff. . .
28.6
30.6
. . 30 n., 156 n.
.. 156 n.
.. 28n.,3in.
. . 84n.
22.21 ff. . .
23.5 ..
23.15 ff. ..
..2511.
. . 141 n.
3i.ioff. ..
- 155
I Chronicles
21. 1
. . 67 n.
n Samuel
Ezra
1*1.6 ff. ..
n.i4ff. . .
.. nan.
. . 34 n.
2.63
.. 31 n.
I2.lff. ..
. . 101 n.
7.14
. . 35 n.
12.7 ff. ..
.. 60 n.
Nehemiah
12.13
.. 89n.,9in.,97n.
2.4
.. 147 n.
12.14
.. 97n.
7.65 ..
. . 31 n.
12.23
.. 1 59
2X.I4
24.1 ff. . .
. . 25 n.
.. 67 n., xoi n., 107 n.
Job
. . 92 n.
24.16
.. 44n.
1.8
.. 8on.
2l6
1.6 ff.
2.1
2.1 ff,
3-20
6.11
7-9 -
lo.ioff,
IO.2I f.
12.7
14.21
17.14
19.25 ff.
21.4
26.5 f.
28
28.22
28.23, 27 f
28.28
42.5
Son.
114x1.
259 a-
8411.
8411.
15811.
13311.
159**-
2311.
158 n.
159 n-
174 n.
16511.
8411.
i6on.
61 n.
i6on.
2411.561 n.
13611.
i33*i-
2511., 6 1 n.
1150.
2.8
8
8.3 (Heb. 4) ..
8.3 (Heb. 4 f.)..
8.4 (Heb. 5) - .
8.5 (Heb. 6) ..
10.4
IO.II
10.13
16
i6.io ..
18.16 (Heb. 17)
19.1 (Heb. 2) ..
22.27 (Heb. 28)
25.4
26.8
27.1
27-4
27.11
30.9 (Heb. 10 )
32.2
33-8
34.1 (geb. 2) ..
34.4 (Heb. 5) ..
34.9 f. (Heb. 10 f.)
34.18 (Heb. 19)
36.9 (Heb. 10) . .
46.6 (Heb. 7)
49 --
49.i4f. ..
50.22
51.1 (Heb. 3) ..
51. 4 (Heb. 6) ..
51.10 (Heb. 12)
51.11 (Heb. 13)
i8on.
51. 17 (Heb. 19)
59.10 (Heb, n)
6a.a,4, 7 f.,i6
67.4 (Heb. 5) ..
72
72.1
72,8, i of,
73
73-23
73.23 f. ..
79.8
84.2 (Heb. 3) . .
84.10 (Heb. n)
86.8
86.11 f. ..
86.13 --
88.5 (Heb. 6) . .
88. f off. (Heb. ii
fE) ..
89.48 (Heb. 49) . .
90.8
90.9! ..
91.1
92.1 (Heb. 2)
95.1
95-6
96.1
96.1 ff.
96.9 f.
100.4
102.15 f.j 21 f.
(Heb.i6,22f.>
103.1
104
104.29
105.43
107.8
112.1,3,6,7,9 ..
115.17 ..
116.5
1 17.1 ..
119.10 ,.
119.36 ..
119.37 ..
128.1 ff. ..
139-8
139.19
143.10
I43-I7
Proverbs
2.16
2.18
3-9
3.13,16
5.3,20
0-24
7-5^
8.36
12511.
27 n.
191 n.
14611.
19*
19111.
180 n.
172,
inn.
17211.
27 n.
143 ^
14331., 18711.
50 n.
135**-
17011.
i6on.
i6on.
15011.
145 n.
151 n.
146 n.
14611.
14611.
145 n,
14611.
18511.
18531.
146 n.
185 n.
146 n.
79 n., 15011.
146 n.
uon.
159 n.
i28n.
185 n.
14711.
147 n.
12811.
uon.
160 n.
5*n-
146 n.
I28n.
13111.
i6on.
1 10 n.
uon.
131 n.
131 n.
131 n.
8911.
135
Indexes
217
Q.l8
. i6on.
20.2 f. . .
.. 3811.
y
15.8
. 88 XL, 96 XL
24-27 ..
.. i6n.
15.0
. 1 6O XL.
24.20 f. . .
, . 179 n.
16.8
. 1 1 1 n.
25.8
* i66n.
1 6.16 . .
. 1 1 1 n.
25-9
. 17911.
21.3
21. 16
. 125 n.
. i Son.
26.14
26.19
. i6on. 9 i66n.
21.27
. 88n.
28.5
. 103 XL, 1x7 n.
22.14
. 131 n.
30.15 ..
. 44 n.
23.27
. 131 n.
31.4 f. ..
. 13611.
28.6
. 1 1 1 n.
34*5
. 19 n.
37.21 ff. ..
44 n *
Ecclesiastes
37-3* ff- -
37-33
. 1 17 XL
.. 13611.
5ft " '
. Qv) 11.
37.36 . .
.. 44H-
7.8
9-5
! 1580.
38.3
39-8
.. 14711.
.. 11311.
9-9
9.10
. 131 n.
. 15811.
40.2
40.12
.. 90 n.
.. 2511.
40.26
.. 25 n.
Isaiah
40.32
.. 90x1,
1.9
. 103 n., 117 n.,
41 .7 f.
. 56 XL
u8n.
. 81 n.
41.14
41.16
. 90 n.
2.2
. 1790.
42.1
. 19311.
2.2 ff. . .
. 72 n., 137 XL
42.3
. 1 1311., 19311.
2.3 f.
2.4
. 182 n.
. 181 XL., 182x1.
42.4
42.6
. 19711.
186x1.
3.2
. son.
43.10 . .
. i86n.
4.3
. 103 n., 11711.
43.28 . .
. 19 n.
v8
. 1 28 n.
44.6
72 n.
6.1
. 2411.
44.8 ..
. 51 n., 72 XL
6.1 ff. . .
. 66 n., 13611.
45.1
. 187 n.
6.3
6.5
. 145 n.
. 133 n-
45.5 f., 18,2 if.
45.22 . .
. 7211.
. 72 n., 185x1.,
187
6.7
. 133 n., 184x1.
49 3
.. 12011,
6.7 ff. ..
. 101 n.
49-5
. . 46 n.
6.8
. 13511.
49-5
.. 119x1.
6.Q
. 189 n.
49.6
. . 72 n., 186 n.
*7
7-3
. 117x1.
50.6
,. 1980.
7.14
, 11911.
5i.4ff.
193 n -
8.18 ..
. 117x1.
52.13
. 198 n.
g,2ff.(Heb.iff
9.6f.(Heb. 5 f.)
10.5
) i88n.
. 189 n.
. 61 n., 81 n.
52.13-53 12
53-3 ff-
. 46 XL
. 124, 199
. 198 it
10.7
. 61 n., 81 n.
53-4
. gSn.
1O.I2
. 8in.
53.4!
. . 46 n.
IO.2O ff. . .
. 10311., 11711
53-6
.. 98 a,, 198 n.
U.I
u.iff. ..
u.3ff. ..
11.4
. i88n.
. . i88n.
.. 1890.
. . 128 n., 146 n.,
i8in.
53-8 ^ -
53-9
53.10 . .
53.11
56.6 f. ..
* * 97 ^*
. 46 n., 97 a.
. 4611., 9811., 1980.
. 19811.
. 187 n.
1 1.6
. . x8on.
56.7
. 137 n., i44n
. . 102 n.
. . 179 n.
57.15
6o.xoff. .
. 82n.,8sn.
. i8on.
14
6i.x
. 8511.
I4..Q
. . i6on.
61,2
. 19311-
*TT*l7 r
14.IO ff. - .
17.10
. . 158 n.
. . 163 n.
6l.2f.
61.5 ..
. 194 n.
. x8on.
2l8
Indexes
65.17
.. 1 80 n., 192x1*
32-33
65.21
.. i Son.
35-ML
65.25
. . 1 92 n.
36.6 ff. .
66.19 f- ..
.. i86n.
38.6 ff. .
44
Jesremwh
44.4 .
1.8
.. 147 n.
44. 1 7 n.
1.9
. . 39 n.
40 ft. .
i.nf, ..
. . 32 n.
50.26
1.13 ff. ..
.. 33 n.
51.3
2.2O
. . 131 n.
3.14 f. ..
.. io8n.
Ezekiel
3.17
S ::
.. 13711., 18211.
. . 131 n.
.. 13011.
8.10
8.13 f. ..
8.16
.. 136 n.
11.19
7-3
.. 137*1-
u.igf. ..
7-*3
. . 70 n.
13-6,9
7.14
7.18
.. 137*1-
. . 132 n.
1 8.2
18.4
7.22
-. 92
20.5
7.25
8,2
. . 70 n.
. . 25 n.
22,28
2 5 ff.
8.8
9.24 (Hcb. 23)
.- 35 n.
.. 82 n.
30.3
34.23 ff. . .
11.7
. , 70 n.
36.22 ff. . .
11*21 ff. . .
. , 11411.
36,26 , 30
12. X
. . 128 n.
37.1 ff. ..
I2.I ff. . .
.. 11211.
40 ff.
12.6
.. 11411.
47-9
J A JO .
.. H3H.
I5.I
.. 108 n.
Daniel
16.3 f. ..
l6.19~21
.. 105 n.
.. 184 n.
2. iff.
2.25 ff. . .
18.1 ff. . .
.. 33 n.
2.44
18.7 f. ..
.. 67 n.
3-25 ff- -
23.3 f. .-
.. ii7n.
4-4 ff
23-5^ -
23.16
.. 190 n.
., 21 n., 28 n., 39 n.
4.8 ff.
6.10
23.18
* . 39 n., 82 n.
7
23.21
-- 39 .
7 .iff ..
23.22
23.23
23.26
23.27 . .
.- 39*.
'.. 82 n.
. . 28 n. 39 n.
.. 32 n.
7.10 ff. ..
7.13
?:!** ::
23.28
. . 32 n.
7.27
24.1 ff. . .
.. 33 n.
25.4
. . 70 n.
8.1 ff.
26.2
.. 136 n.
8.16
26.3
. . 13711.
9.21
26.5
26.6
. . 70 n.
9.25 f. . .
10 ff.
27 f. .-
. . 28 n., 38 n.
10.13,21
27.9
. . 30 n.
12. 1
29-8
. . 30 n.
12.2
29-9 -
. . 70 n.
12.3
31.29
. . 104 n.
31-30
. . 105 n.
Hosea
31.31 ff. . .
. . 3611., io6n. 190 n.
2.8
31.33 ff. . ,
. . 192 n.
3-5
70 n.
7011.
13611*
14711.
77
70 n.
13211.
S02n.
1911.
19 n.
16311,
25 n.
85 n.
nyn.
Son.
10411.
105 n.
56 n.
30 n.
loan.
17911.
191 n.
11711.
19311.
74 n.
32 n.
32 n.
i8on.
58 n.
32 n.
32 n.
147 n.
*94
32 n.
i79 n -
I94n., 196
194 n.
32 n.
18011., 194 n.,
195 -
32 n.
Son.
Son.
187 n.
32 n.
Son.
Son.
198 n.
25 n.
179 nu
Indexes
219
4.2
i Son.
Mwah
4.13 f-
6.1 f.
1310.
16411.
1.7
2.2
131 n.
12811.
6.2
16411.
2.7
8411.
6.6
96 n., 1300.
2.12 f. ..
11711.
8.5
7811.
3.II
30 n.
10.5
7811.
3.12
13711.
xi. 8
70 n.
4.1
17911.
12.9 (Heb. 10)
56 n.
4.1 ffi .- .-
73x1., 137 n.
12.13 (Heb. 14)
13.2
57 n.
7811.
4 .2f. '..
4*3
18211.
181 n., 182 n.
4.4
i8on., 18211.
Joel
1.15
179 n
5.2, 4 (Heb. i, 3)
5.7 f. (Heb. 6 f.)
180 n., 189 n.
117x1.
2.1
17911.
5.8-7.17
82 n.
2.2
17811.
6.8
8211., 130x1., 13431.
2.12ff. ..
6711.
2.13f.
26 n.
Habakkuk
2^28 (Heb. 3.1) .,
2.32 (Heb. 3.5) ..
86 n., 17811.
17811.
1.13 ..
i.iSff. ..
145 n.
JI2H.
3. 14 (Heb. 4.4) ..
17911.
2.14
189 n.
3-3
51*1.
Amos
i.i
30 n.
Zephanuih
i.36, 9, ni3 -
2.1
12311.
1 23 n., 155 n.
1.14 ..
i.i4ff. ..
1 7g XL
I78n.
2 7 f .
131 n.
2.3
103 n.
2.8
i28n.
3.10
i84n.
3.2
65 n.
3.3
82 n.
Haggai
3-7
39 n., 82 n.
1.4
i37n.
3.8
49 n.
3.12
103 n., 11711.,
Zjechanah
Ii8n.
1.16
137 n.
4.1
103 n.
2. 1 1 (Heb. 15) ..
187 n.
4-9
26 n.
8.9
1370.
4.11
72 n., 11711., u8n.
8.22 f. . .
185 n.
5.6 .. ..
8211.
9 . 9 f. ..
i8on., 191 n.
5.8 .- ..
25 n,, 72 n.
10,2
30 n.
5.12
12711.
12. IO
19911.
5.15
103 n., 1270.
12. II
163
5 .i8f. .. ..
i78n.
I3.I
19911.
5-23
143 n.
I4.I
I99n.
5.24
12711.
14.3 ff. . .
19911.
5.25^
92
14.9
199 n.
7.1 ffi ..
148 n.
14.11 ..
19 n.
7.7 ffi ..
33^.
7.10 ff. ..
13611.
Malachi
7.15
101 n.
4.6 (Heb. 3,24) . .
19 n.
8. i ff. . .
32 n., I48n.
8.41?. ..
127 n.
Ecclesiasticus
8.14 ..
133*.
17.30
1 50n.
9.7
72 n.
19.4
89 n.
19.19 ..
150 n.
Obadiah
38.15
i6on.
15
17911.
ii Maccabees
Jonah
7*9
153 n., i68n.
2.1
148 n.
7.11
i53 n *
22O
Indexes
7.14 ..
7.23, 36
14.46
i Enoch
38.2
41.2
45-2
46.7
Apocafypse of Moses
40.1
Matthew
6.5
6.33
16.20
i6.ai& ..
26.36 O . .
26.63 . .
Mark
i.24f. ..
t.nf. ..
.46
8.29f. ..
8.30
8.31
8,31 O . .
9-3of. ..
9-31
10.45 --
14.32 ff. . .
14.61 f. . .
Luke
2.25
2.37
4.16
4.16 ff. ..
4.4*
6.12
6.20f. ..
9.20 f.
9.21
9.28
9.44! ..
17.14 ..
18.10
18.32 ff. . .
22.40 ff. . .
24.24 ff. . .
John
1.18
4.14
6.54
IO.IO
153 n., *68 n.
10.29
.. 176 n.
i68n*
12.32
.. 45 n.
153 n.
14.1
.. 1520.
14.6
. . 1 76 n.
19.37 . .
. . 199
50 n.
50 n.
Acts
50 n.
5011.
1.26
756 -.
. . 3 1 n.
.. 19611.
50 n.
16.13
. . 141 n.
5011.
21.26
. . 1 39 n.
23.8
. . 1 68 n.
25.8
.. i39n.
15611.
28.17
.. I39n.
141 n.
5 T
.. 68 n.
20 1 n.
8. 34
,. 152 n.
i88n,, 19611.
200 n.
i Corinthians
148 n.
i5-i6f. ..
., 152 n.
i88n.
15.19 ..
.. 15111.
ii Corinthians
i88n.
4-4
. . 84 n.
i88n.
4.6
. . 84 n.
148 n.
5.8
. . 152 n.
196 n.
Ephesians
45 n.
I.2O
.. 15211.
200 n.
200 n.
Philippians
45*i.
1.23 f. ..
.. 1520.
4511.
148 n.
Colossians
i88n?
1.15
. . 84 n.
3.1
.. 152 n.
I43n.
I Thessalonians
4.140 ..
.. 152 n.
141 n.
141 n., 193 n.
Hebrews
i88n.
1-3
. . 84 n., 15211-
148 n.
2.7
. . 79 n.
lion.
8.1
.. 152 n.
i88n.
IO.I2
.. 152 n.
196 n.
ii. 16
.. 154 n.
148 n.
12.2
. . 152 n.
200 n.
13911.
I Peter
14411.
3.22
.. 155 n.
200 n.
148 n.
Revelation
200 n.
3.21
. . 152 n.
7.9, 14 f.
. . 151 n.
20.4
.. 152 n.
2411.
2 1. if.
.. 152 n.
17611.
Pirfc Aboth
176 n.
2.1
.. 88 n.
30 c
cz
CD<
5 m
50
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11